(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "The multicampus University of North Carolina comes of age, 1956-1986"

The 

Multicampus University 

of North Carolina 

Comes of Age, 

1956— 1986 



ARNOLD K. KING 




£,'■ 



*v:^ 



••.-.■ • 



, ' 




:■;■.",/;<;/: ,> 






■•••"■■■'■':■■ ^ 



:""Y'v ■ . ^ ' ' : -:-y^ : ^:[^ 



The Multicampus University 

of North Carolina Comes 

of Age, 1956- 1986 









Digitized by the Internet Archive 

in 2012 with funding from 

LYRASIS Members and Sloan Foundation 



http://www.archive.org/details/multicampusuniveOOking 



ARNOLD K. KING 



The Multicampus University 

of North Carolina Comes 

of Age, 1936-1986) 



The University of North Carolina 
Chapel Hill 



mmm 



MADISON RANDALL LIBRARY OK AT WBJMHGnil 



© 1987 The University of North Carolina 

All rights reserved 

Manufactured in the United States of America 

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data 

King, Arnold K. 

The multicampus University of North Carolina comes 

of age, 1956-1986. 

Bibliography: p. 

Includes index. 

1. University of North Carolina (System) — History. 

I. Title. 

LD3929.K56 1987 378-756'565 87-5827 

ISBN O-9617954-O-9 






To my friend of many years, 

GEORGE WATTS HILL, 

a great benefactor of North Carolina 



Contents 



Foreword by William C. Friday / ix 
Preface / xi 



PART ONE 

The Consolidated University of North Carolina 

Chapter i. Threshold of a New Era 
3 

Chapter 2. Innovations and Tensions 
26 

Chapter 3. Changing the Restrictions of Consolidation 
44 

Chapter 4. The Speaker-Ban Law 

57 

Chapter 5. Student Unrest 
70 

Chapter 6. Expansion and Conflict 
92 

Chapter 7. The Battle over Restructuring 
no 

Chapter 8. Administrative Changes 
141 



[vii] 



Contents 



PART TWO 

The Multicampus University of North Carolina 

Chapter 9. The Planning Period 
153 

Chapter 10. The Beginning of the Sixteen-Campus University 
167 

Chapter n. Expansion of Medical Education 
180 

Chapter 12. Title 6: The University vs. the Federal Government 
204 

Chapter 13. The Standing Committees of the Board of Governors 

243 

Chapter 14. Relations with Private Institutions 

274 

Chapter 15. The General Administration, 1 972-1 986 
294 

Chapter 16. The Chancellors, 1972-1986 
3ii 

Chapter 17. The Board of Governors, 1972-1986 
329 



Bibliography / 351 
Index / 361 



Foreword 



Arnold K. King has spent over sixty years of his long and very useful life 
in association with the University of North Carolina. That, in itself, is 
quite an achievement; however, those years are all the more important be- 
cause during that time he served as student, professor, graduate school 
administrator, head of the summer session, acting chancellor of a con- 
stituent campus, vice president, as well as participating in the work of 
many study commissions, panels, and boards in the university, in the 
state, in the southern region, and in the nation. 

He is a competent witness; he is a loving critic. Certainly he writes 
knowledgeably about these last three decades because his participation in 
and awareness of the events of those years are wide and deep. There is no 
one else of my recollection whose involvement in the work of the univer- 
sity was more diverse or more comprehensive, and it was made all the 
more enjoyable because of his abiding good will and good humor. 

The pages that follow cover my own years as a University of North 
Carolina administrator. Two-thirds of that time, Arnold King and I were 
colleagues, jointly working to resolve the issues before us and in planning 
the future of the university. Others, as historians and students of univer- 
sity growth and emergence, will judge those years critically, and that is as 
it should be. Dr. King has recorded here what his rich experience deemed 
of importance and significance with enough detail to guide the future his- 
torian or scholar to the available sources in the records of the university. 

Reading these pages brought to mind many memories of the joy, pain, 
disappointment, and fulfillment one experiences in an intensely human 
institution such as a university. One is reminded, too, of what a great 
privilege it was to have worked with people of such great devotion and 
intelligence who seek none but the highest goals for the university. My 
tenure was rich indeed through daily involvement with splendid col- 
leagues. For twenty-two years, Arnold King shared his best thought and 
great energy with me as such a trusted friend, participant, and adviser. 
The University of North Carolina is a better institution today because of 
his uncommon service and his unceasing love for this special place. 



William C. Friday 
September 1986 



[IX] 



Preface 



The University of North Carolina opened its doors to students in 1795, 
earlier than any other state university in the United States. For 125 years 
it was a relatively small institution, and it was not until the second decade 
of the twentieth century that it began to show promise of developing into 
a modern university. When I entered the University of North Carolina in 
1919, it had fewer than nineteen hundred students. During the next de- 
cade, its enrollment increased by more than one thousand, and its im- 
proved standing in the academic community testified to the great progress 
it was making in teaching, research and public service. It was recognized as 
a regional center of scholarship. 

In 193 1, driven in part by the great Depression, two other institu- 
tions — North Carolina State College of Agriculture and Engineering at 
Raleigh and North Carolina College for Women at Greensboro — were 
combined with it into one of the early multicampus organizations. It was 
usually called the Consolidated University of North Carolina, but its 
official name was unchanged and it continues today to be the University 
of North Carolina. By 193 1, when the three were merged, they had a 
combined enrollment of less than six thousand students. The Consoli- 
dated University grew slowly over the next fifteen years and emerged as a 
dynamic institution following World War II when the GIs returned. En- 
rollment increased by 1956, in the three institutions, to about 14,800 
students. 

It was at this point that higher education in North Carolina began to 
show signs of rapid growth. Soon the restrictions of consolidation were 
relaxed, and each campus became coeducational and was given a broader 
allocation of functions. Over the next thirty years, the number of institu- 
tions in the multicampus structure increased, first, to four and then, to 
six and, finally, in one decisive act of the state legislature in 1971, it was 
increased to sixteen. With a new Board of Governors, all public senior 
institutions were merged into the University of North Carolina. 

The administration, under the leadership of President William C. Fri- 
day, slowly accumulated the experience to manage a vast multicampus in- 
stitution of diverse functions enrolling 125,000 students. 

I have been associated with the University of North Carolina during 
my entire professional career extending from 1925 to the present and have 



[xii] Preface 

witnessed this phenomenal expansion. During the last twenty-two years, 
I have been a member of the staff of the General Administration of the 
University, working with President Friday who retired in March 1986. 
He has been the principal architect of the system of administration and 
governance that has been developed in the University of North Carolina, 
a system that Dr. Clark Kerr said recently "has become one of the two or 
three best models for the nation as a whole, and perhaps the best of them 
all." 

Professor Albert Coates, former Director of the Institute of Govern- 
ment of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, mentioned to 
me many times that the story of the recent growth and development of 
the multicampus university here in North Carolina should be told while 
many of the participants in the movement are still active, and he insisted 
that I should do it. I was encouraged by Mr. Philip G. Carson, chairman 
of the Board of Governors of the University of North Carolina, to under- 
take this role. President Friday and Senior Vice President Raymond H. 
Dawson and many of my associates encouraged me to proceed. This 
book is the result of my efforts since October 1985. It is concerned with 
the growth of a small multicampus institution into a vigorous and na- 
tionally acclaimed multipurpose center of scholarship. The work is not 
an officially sponsored university publication. It is my own study, and I 
assume full responsibility for its contents. 

The multicampus form of university governance is one of the major 
innovations of American higher education in the twentieth century. It is 
my hope that this book will contribute something to the understanding 
of that movement. 

This account is not a memoir; however, it has obviously been influ- 
enced by my own personal recollections. I have tried, nevertheless, to fol- 
low the path laid out by the numerous sources that are readily available 
and are listed in the bibliography. 

It would not have been possible for me to have completed this work on 
time without the valuable assistance of Mr. David B. Parker, Jr., a gradu- 
ate student and teaching assistant in the Department of History in the 
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, who relieved me of much of 
the drudgery of searching through newspapers and documents. Mrs. 
Doris W. Huff, with whom I have been associated for more than a quarter 
of a century, transcribed the entire book and then copied much of it 
through at least three revisions. I shall always be grateful to her. Mrs. 
Doris M. Thornburg has also given liberally of her time to assist in typ- 
ing several chapters. All of my colleagues in the General Administration 
of the university have been helpful, and Senior Vice President Dawson 
has been generous in reading the entire book and giving me the value of 



Preface [xiii] 

his keen memory and gentle criticism. My wife, Louise Tunstall, has 
supported me through months of one-topic conversation and has also 
given me valuable assistance and criticism. 

If this book breaks the trail for someone to write the definitive story in 
the future, I will feel greatly rewarded. 

Arnold K. King 
31 July 1986 



The Multicampus University 

of North Carolina Comes 

of Age, ig 56 -1986 



PART ONE 

The Consolidated University 
of North Carolina 



CHAPTER 



Threshold of a New Era 



A t a special meeting of the Executive Committee of the Board of Trust- 
ees of the University of North Carolina on 10 June 1955, Governor 
Luther Hodges read a telegram from Mr. Charles Wilson, secretary of 
defense, requesting that President Gordon Gray be released from his re- 
sponsibilities as president of the university to accept the position of as- 
sistant secretary for international security affairs in Washington, D.C. 
President Gray insisted that he must answer this call to duty and tendered 
his resignation. The members of the executive committee doubtless felt a 
sense of frustration and disappointment. Instead of releasing President 
Gray, they passed a resolution giving him a leave of absence beginning 15 
July, an action they came to regret. It was agreed that the situation would 
be reviewed in November. Dr. Harris Purks, provost of the university, 
was named acting president. On 10 November President Gray again asked 
for his release, insisting that it would be better for the university. The 
executive committee agreed and complied with his request. Dr. Purks 
was continued as acting president. The executive committee also autho- 
rized the appointment of a presidential search committee and advised this 
committee to set up adequate machinery for faculty consultation. 

On 4 January 1956, another disquieting event occurred. Governor 
Hodges announced to the executive committee in a special meeting that 
he had received a letter from Mr. D. Hiden Ramsey, chairman of the 
newly created Board of Higher Education, asking that Dr. Purks be re- 
leased as acting president to become director of the board. Governor 
Hodges stated that he had asked Mr. Victor S. Bryant to prepare a report 
on possible candidates for acting president. Mr. Bryant made a report, 
but he did not recommend a nominee. It can be surmised that the number 
of candidates was limited. The possibilities were William D. Carmichael, 
vice president and finance officer; Whatley W. Pierson, dean of the gradu- 
ate school; and William C. Friday, secretary of the university. Mr. Car- 
michael, who had been laboring strenuously for the university since 
1940, had in an earlier meeting informed the executive committee that he 
had been advised to slow down. Dr. Pierson was nearing the end of his 

[3] 



[4] The Consolidated University of North Carolina 

long and distinguished career and had never had experience handling an 
organization as complex as the Consolidated University. This left Mr. 
Friday, who had been assistant to President Gray and then secretary of the 
university, with the responsibility for trustee relations. The board inter- 
viewed Mr. Friday and then named him acting president to begin his du- 
ties on i March 1956. 

Mr. Friday was thirty-five years of age. He was born in Virginia and 
grew up in Dallas, North Carolina, where he attended the public schools. 
In 1937 he entered Wake Forest College and after a year transferred to 
North Carolina State College from which he graduated in textile engi- 
neering. In 1942 he married Ida Howell, a graduate of Meredith College. 
During World War II, he was a lieutenant in the U.S. Navy. After the war 
he enrolled in the law school at the University of North Carolina at 
Chapel Hill, where he received the Ll.B. degree in 1948. He became as- 
sistant dean of students and later acting dean of students in the university 
at Chapel Hill. In 195 1 Mr. Friday became assistant to President Gordon 
Gray. He had been secretary of the university for less than a year when he 
was called on to serve as acting president. 

This change and confusion in the administration of the university could 
not have come at a more inopportune time. Many serious problems had 
accumulated over the years, and the new Board of Higher Education, 
which had been created by the legislature in 1955 "to promote the devel- 
opment and operation of a sound, vigorous, progressive and consolidated 
system of higher education in the State of North Carolina," was just be- 
ginning to function. Questions had been raised in the press about the 
wisdom of continuing the Consolidated University. As a matter of fact, 
the executive committee of the Board of Trustees had considered it neces- 
sary to deny that deconsolidation was being considered by the board. 

Mr. Gordon Gray had been elected in February 1950 as president of the 
Consolidated University of North Carolina with great hopes and expec- 
tations for a long period of growth, progress, and stability in the univer- 
sity. When he came to office he found an administrative structure that 
must have been amazing to his orderly and systematic mind. President 
Frank P. Graham had completed nineteen years of highly successful per- 
sonal administration, which even today is a puzzling dilemma to those 
who try to fathom it. He had the able and dedicated service of Mr. Car- 
michael, who kept the finances of the university in first-rate order. He 
also had the aid of Dean Pierson in running the graduate affairs of the 
university. However, he was without any other staff assistance. He per- 
mitted Chancellor Jackson at the Woman's College and Chancellor Harrel- 
son at State College a great deal of latitude in running their institutions as 
long as they stayed within the fiscal boundaries set by Mr. Carmichael. At 



Threshold of a New Era [5] 

Chapel Hill, President Graham had his office in South Building near the 
office of Chancellor House and ran the affairs of that institution to the 
extent that he desired within the time available to him. Chancellor House 
adjusted to this embarrassing situation with great fortitude and devotion 
over the years. The three institutions progressed remarkably well under 
this system. President Graham was absent for long periods of time on 
various tasks for the federal government. Mr. Carmichael and the chan- 
cellors kept the organization moving during these periods. They also 
found the funds to support frequent innovations that President Graham 
brought home. 

President Gray attempted as speedily as possible to create a predictable 
and effective administrative structure for both the consolidated office and 
the three campuses. He brought in a management firm to survey the en- 
tire university and began making changes that have endured over the past 
thirty-four years. He also started a revision of the Code of the university, 
part of which, is still in use. He made a strenuous effort to improve the 
salary scale for the faculty and the quality of additions to the staff. The 
testing program for admission to the university, which has had so much 
influence over the past generation, was also one of his innovations. He 
instituted a series of faculty conferences involving the three campuses, 
which led to a searching self-evaluation of the academic program, ex- 
tending over several years. During his administration, desegregation was 
a crucial problem. The Brown Decision was handed down by the United 
States Supreme Court in 1954; however, the university had been grap- 
pling with the problem of desegregation since 1950. It was a divisive sub- 
ject in many meetings of the Board of Trustees and one that created wide- 
spread discussion. The federal courts eventually relieved the Board of 
Trustees of all responsibilities except that of obeying the court's decision 
to open its doors to all qualified students without regard to race. It was 
during President Gray's administration that the Division of Health Affairs 
and the building program for that division began to have great impact on 
the university, and tensions that were especially acute developed. Presi- 
dent Gray first saw the possibilities inherent in educational television and 
set the course of the university toward the great development in that field. 
It was toward the end of his administration that the Research Triangle was 
in the conceptual stage, and he saw the great potential in this enterprise 
that involved Duke, North Carolina State, and the university at Chapel 
Hill so intimately. 

President Gray's administration was directed toward planning for a har- 
monious organization, but it would be a mistake to say that it was achieved 
during his time. President Gray, like President Graham, was drawn to 
Washington frequently, and there were interruptions in the affairs of the 



[6] The Consolidated University of North Carolina 

university, which resulted from the frequent calls for his service from the 
federal government. He was a man of great ability and administrative 
skill, but it was evident that he found it difficult to adjust to the leisurely 
pace of academic administration and to the practice of wide consultation 
among the faculty, both of which are characteristic of universities. He 
had an unfortunate personal tragedy in the loss of his wife during his ad- 
ministration, and it is safe to assume that when the call to duty came from 
Washington it was not unwelcome. 

President Gray had assembled a consolidated office staff to assist him 
with the running of the university. In addition to the vice president and 
finance officer and the dean of the graduate school, he had added a pro- 
vost, who was responsible for advising him on academic matters, and a 
secretary of the university, who assisted him with relationships with the 
Board of Trustees and with other matters that might involve alumni and 
public relations. A business officer and treasurer had been authorized but 
not appointed. Recent events had seen the president go to Washington, 
the provost go to the Board of Higher Education, and the secretary to the 
position of acting president of the university. A development of the next 
few months would see the dean of the graduate school become acting 
chancellor at Greensboro. Consequently, the only permanent appointee 
in the consolidated office was the vice president and finance officer, Wil- 
liam D. Carmichael. There were grave problems in the administration at 
the Women's College. The chancellor at Chapel Hill was reaching the age 
at which he should retire. There was confusion in the Division of Health 
Affairs at Chapel Hill, and there were emerging problems with the newly 
created Board of Higher Education that had been authorized to review 
both budgets and programs of institutions of higher education. There 
was public criticism over the long period without strong administrative 
leadership in the university. Now the fortunes of the university were 
placed in the inexperienced hands of a young man thirty-five years of age, 
who had neither teaching experience nor the traditional doctoral degree 
expected in that position. The search committee was looking almost des- 
perately for a president. Salaries for both faculty and administrative posi- 
tions were not competitive in the national market, and the same was true 
for the salaries of the consolidated office. There had been no state appro- 
priation for salary increases during the 1955-57 biennium. 

The acting president went to work with vigor and skill to confront 
some of these problems. Even before he formally assumed office, his in- 
fluence could be seen. On 13 February 1956 the executive committee of 
the board passed a resolution that required all administrative officials to 
retire on 1 July in the year after they reached sixty-five. At the same meet- 
ing of the board, provisions were made for Chancellor House to assume a 



Threshold of a New Era [7] 

professorship in English after he retired. There was also a discussion of 
the tensions in the Division of Health Affairs reported by the Health Af- 
fairs Committee, and it was decided to seek advice from the attorney 
general as to what "privileges" the trustees had in dealing with the affairs 
of the hospital. Late in February, Acting President Friday reported that 
Dr. William M. Whyburn had been appointed acting provost. The presi- 
dential search committee made it clear that the salary available for the 
staff of the Consolidated University was much less than for comparable 
positions over the country. They requested that the Board of Trustees ask 
the "proper authorities" for more funds. 

It was not long before the Consolidated University had its first request 
from the Board of Higher Education, which had legislative authority to 
review the budgets and new programs of all public institutions of higher 
education in the state. At the beginning of May the board received from 
the consolidated office eight academic programs that were contemplated 
for the three institutions in order to meet the 1 5 May deadline of the 
board. 

For more than a year a rift between the chancellor and many members 
of the faculty at Woman's College had been reported. This disagreement 
became so acute that the visiting committee of the Board of Trustees re- 
quested the president have it investigated. Acting President Friday imme- 
diately appointed Vice President and Finance Officer Carmichael, Act- 
ing Provost Whyburn, and Dean Pierson to investigate the situation. 
They held hearings on the campus and, in the course of the hearings, 
Chancellor E. K. Graham, Jr. , decided that it would be in the best interest 
of all concerned for him to resign. His resignation was reported to the 
Board of Trustees on 24 May 1956. The students sent a resolution regret- 
ting Chancellor Graham's action, and the trustees praised him and ex- 
pressed regret at his resignation; however, there was a general feeling of 
relief when the matter was handled so expeditiously without causing any 
deeper rift. Shortly after the resignation of Chancellor Graham was re- 
ceived, the board passed an interesting and short-lived regulation to the 
effect that no further male applicants to the Woman's College would be 
admitted. Dean W. W. Pierson, Jr., was named acting chancellor of Wom- 
an's College. 

During the summer of 1956 there was much speculation in the state 
press over filling the presidency and the activity of the search committee. 
Committees of the faculty were appointed to advise the search commit- 
tee. There were also arguments by the committee for higher salaries with 
the statement that the pay of the president was at least $7,500 lower than 
that of those holding similar positions. Some of the newspaper comment 
was directed toward the possibility that Mr. Friday might be the nomi- 



[8] The Consolidated University of North Carolina 

nee, and there was newspaper sentiment for the committee to "turn its 
eyes to Chapel Hill and to the Acting President." Mr. A. H. Shepard, a 
graduate of Davidson College and a native of Wilmington, was approved 
to continue in an acting capacity as business officer and treasurer. The fall 
term of 1956 opened with an enrollment of 6,969 at Chapel Hill, of 5,505 
at State, andof2,324at Woman's College, for a total enrollment of 14,798. 
It was also first decided during this period that the university would issue 
$2 million in bonds for North Carolina State and a like amount for Chapel 
Hill for the construction of student housing. These were to be Federal 
Home Housing Finance Bonds with an interest rate of 2.75 percent. 

Speculation continued concerning the activities of the presidential 
search committee. It was reported that the committee was meeting some 
hard facts of educational life. Among them were the following: "While 
comparable state universities elsewhere are offering $25,000 annually, 
North Carolina pays $15,000. There is a strong feeling among some edu- 
cators — many of whom are possible presidential candidates — that the 
University may deconsolidate in the future pushing the President out of a 
job." 

Sentiment was gradually crystallizing that the best choice would be to 
find a president with potential, possibly a young man who could develop. 
The rumor was out as early as 12 October 1956 that the search committee 
was ready to nominate a man, and it was urged to act with haste. 

At a special meeting of the executive committee of the board on 18 Oc- 
tober Mr. Victor Bryant, chairman of the search committee, read the rec- 
ommendation of the committee for Acting President William Friday. The 
committee voted unanimously for his nomination to be presented to the 
full board. Mr. Friday appeared before the executive committee and 
raised some questions that he thought should be considered before the 
committee made its final recommendation. He made it clear to the group 
that he supported fully the faculty point of view with reference to aca- 
demic freedom. In a tactful way he let them know that some pressure had 
been brought to bear on him to make certain appointments if he were 
selected as president. He wanted the committee to know that he had 
made no commitments. He pointed out the need for a vice president for 
graduate study and research, especially in view of the increasing number 
of grants that were being received by the university and the lack of ade- 
quate supervision of this activity. He stated that unless they objected he 
would assume that they would support this addition to the staff. 

Finally, he had the following personal statement for the committee: 

I have known that some members of the Committee were con- 
cerned over my lack of traditional educational experience, over the 
fact that I do not hold a Doctor's degree, that I have not formally 



Threshold of a New Era [9] 

taught, and because I am 36 years of age. These considerations led 
some members of the Nominating Committee to become seriously 
concerned over what was to be done to insure the educational leader- 
ship of the University. I participated in two informal meetings with 
members of the Committee (5 in number), and I found that they had 
spent time discussing not only the presidency but the provostship 
and the chancellorships particularly at Chapel Hill. At one of these 
meetings, I was advised by a member of the Nominating Committee 
that should their group be asked to do so, he was confident they 
would unanimously vote for a particular named individual for the 
Provost position. 

I respectfully submit that your first consideration must be toward 
the office of the President and the dignity and freedom you wish for 
it to have and because of this conviction on my part, I advised the 
Nominating Committee Chairman that I felt it must be clearly under- 
stood that anyone invited to serve the University as its President 
must enter the office completely free of commitments, and that it 
must be understood, that, within the broad policy declarations of the 
Trustees, he has full and complete authority along with the full re- 
sponsibility for the administration of the University. 

The executive committee received the long statement of the nominee 
graciously and made no further comment; however, the full Board of 
Trustees was called into session on 26 October, and Mr. Bryant was 
called on to present the report of the nominating committee. He summa- 
rized some of the factors which made their task a difficult one. Among 
them were Mr. Gray's resignation; the Supreme Court's decision on racial 
integration; inadequate and noncompetitive salary schedules for the presi- 
dent and faculties; resignations and unfilled vacancies; internal problems 
in the three institutions; the university's relationship with the State Board 
of Higher Education; and the future of consolidation. He stated with 
some poignancy, "surely these were perilous days for the University and 
frequently there were more clouds than sunshine." With thanks to all 
who assisted the committee, including faculty committees from the three 
institutions, he made his recommendation. Among his most emphatic 
statements was "today our University is on the threshold of a new era. It 
can be a glorious one. We will face it with a new and capable leadership. 
The old traditions will not be abandoned. They will be projected into a 
modern age." 

After continuing for several pages justifying the nomination and prais- 
ing it, he made this prophetic statement: "Above all else your Committee 
has been impressed by Mr. Friday's integrity and fairness as he has gone 
about his duties of Acting President. In the final analysis the demonstra- 



[10] The Consolidated University of North Carolina 

tion of such qualities, and the awareness that such qualities exist in the 
office of the President by the faculties and the other constituencies of the 
University, may well be the most important attribute of a successful 
President. In a trying time Mr. Friday has stood steadfast on all matters." 
President and Mrs. Friday then appeared before the board to receive a 
standing ovation. Mr. Friday made a short and eloquent statement to the 
board and the "new era" was launched. 

Following the meeting of the Board of Trustees, President Friday held a 
news conference in which he stated some of his immediate goals. First, he 
wanted to move the adminstrative offices from South Building on the 
campus to the old Institute of Government building on Franklin Street as 
soon as possible, to permit the chancellor more freedom and to provide 
more space for the operation of both the consolidated office and the chan- 
cellor's office. This, of course, was something that had been desired by 
the administration and faculty on the campus for almost twenty-five 
years. Second, he planned to fill the vacancies in his staff and to begin a 
search for a chancellor at Woman's College and a replacement for Chancel- 
lor House at Chapel Hill. Third, it was his intention to begin working on 
the biennial budget immediately and to attempt to obtain from the Gen- 
eral Assembly funds for higher faculty salaries,- better library facilities, 
and the research funds that he thought must be provided to keep the uni- 
versity at a high academic level. He made it clear that he thought the 
presidency of the university was a full-time job and that he intended to 
devote his full energies to the task. 

Within a month following his election, President and Mrs. Friday 
moved into the old Greek revival presidential mansion on East Franklin 
Street. It was already almost fifty years old and had served as the resi- 
dence of five presidents. The old house had been remodeled once and had 
had minor repairs on many occasions. It had not been occupied for more 
than a year and was almost barren of furnishings. This was the year of an 
extremely tight state budget and there were few resources for making it 
livable. Gradually and with infinite patience, Mrs. Friday made it a charm- 
ing and homelike place that was known throughout North Carolina. 

When they moved in, President and Mrs. Friday had two small daugh- 
ters. A third daughter arrived later, and the three girls gave to the Presi- 
dent's home a lively and gracious atmosphere. The presidential home be- 
came over the years a role model for all of North Carolina. 

The reaction of the state press to President Friday's selection was unani- 
mously favorable. Editorials and articles in all of the leading state papers 
congratulated the Board of Trustees on the wisdom of their choice and 
complimented the state on having available in its own institutions a per- 
son who was worthy of such an important trust. For those who might 



Threshold of a New Era [n] 

have thought his youth was a handicap, Louis Graves of the Chapel Hill 
Weekly pointed out that six of the eleven presidents who preceded him 
were under forty at the time of their election and the other five were be- 
tween forty and forty-five. 

President Friday's previous experience as a member of the staff of the 
Consolidated University had given him an excellent opportunity to be- 
come acquainted with its system of governance. Extensive power to gov- 
ern the university was vested in a ioo-member Board of Trustees elected 
on a staggered basis by the General Assembly for eight-year terms. In 
addition, the governor, state superintendent of public instruction, and 
former governors were ex-officio members. The governor was the presid- 
ing officer of the board. It had developed a committee structure that en- 
abled it to involve each of the members in some activity. The executive 
committee was by far the most important of these groups. It exercised 
most of the powers of the Board of Trustees except those of electing prin- 
cipal officers, and it could not reverse any action that had been taken by 
the board. Its actions were recorded in elaborate minutes and circulated 
among all the members of the board and were subject to ratification at 
each meeting of the board. The Board of Trustees met three times a year 
and on call when necessary. The executive committee met most of the 
months of the year and on call when necessary. The members of the 
executive committee were elected by the full board for a stated term. The 
governor also presided over the executive committee. The plan of having 
the governor as chairman both of the board and of the executive commit- 
tee tended to prevent the development of internal political cliques and 
worked well over a long period of time because he was usually too busy 
to interfere directly in the administration of the university. A body of 
rules and regulations had also accumulated over many years and was 
gradually brought together early in President Friday's term in the Code, 
which set forth in clear language how the university was organized and 
administered. 

President Friday developed certain mechanisms for administering the 
university that involved the participation of several of its constituencies. 
The administrative council was made up in the beginning of chancellors 
and chief business officers of the three constituent institutions together 
with the senior staff members in his office. They met once a month on a 
regular basis, and virtually all matters received some preliminary consid- 
eration by this group. 

From time to time on a less formal basis, the president called together 
the student-body presidents and sometimes other student leaders for ad- 
vice on matters of special relevance to students. 

Early in his administration the president felt the need for advice from a 



[i2] The Consolidated University of North Carolina 

faculty group. This led him to establish a body called the President's Ad- 
visory Council on Educational Policy. It was made up of the chancellors 
of each of the three constituent institutions together with five faculty 
members from Chapel Hill, four from Raleigh, and three from Greens- 
boro. This body rendered valuable service to the General Administration 
of the university over the years and assisted the president in many of the 
major problems that subsequently developed. At one stage, after the uni- 
versity had begun to expand, it was decided to have a more formal orga- 
nization, and a delegate assembly of about forty members from the sev- 
eral campuses assembled at the Quail Roost Conference Center near 
Rougemont on n May 1968 and, under the leadership of Professor 
Joseph C. Sloane of the Department of Art at Chapel Hill, drew up a for- 
mal constitution. It was designated "The University Advisory Council." 
Its activities were to be carried on through the president and it was lim- 
ited to dealing with problems of import to the entire university. When 
the university was subsequently restructured, this body was expanded 
into the current Faculty Assembly. 

President Friday rapidly developed skill in dealing with the legislature, 
the press, the internal constituencies of faculty, the students, and espe- 
cially the chancellors. He was fortunate in having the able assistance of 
some of the state's most distinguished citizens on the Board of Trustees 
and especially on the executive committee. Among them were governors 
Luther H. Hodges from Leaksville-Spray and Terry Sanford from Fayette- 
ville, Mrs. Virginia Lathrop from Asheville, and Messrs. Victor Bryant 
from Durham, Lenox G. Cooper from Wilmington, George Watts Hill 
from Durham, Reid Maynard from Burlington, Thomas Pearsall from 
Rocky Mount, Ralph Scott from Alamance County, Walter Smith from 
Charlotte, Frank Taylor from Goldsboro, and George Wood from Cam- 
den. These and many others gave the executive committee and the Board 
of Trustees a degree of credibility enjoyed by no other body in North 
Carolina. 

President Friday selected his staff of senior officers carefully, slowly, 
and with great skill. They eventually came to be known as one of the 
most effective corps of administrators among the multicampus univer- 
sities of the United States. 

During the first months of his administration Mr. Friday devoted much 
time to the biennial budget, which had to be presented first to the Board 
of Higher Education under the statute establishing that body. He ob- 
tained a total of $18,253,449 f°r the entire Consolidated University for 
^S? - 58 and of $19,944,080 for 1958-59. This was a healthy increase 
over the previous biennium. 

The time of the consolidated office was diverted early in President Fri- 



Threshold of a New Era [13] 

day's administration by a basketball scandal that involved serious penal- 
ties for North Carolina State by both the NCAA and the Atlantic Coast 
Conference. The Daily Tar Heel enjoyed the opportunity to take some 
gibes at President Friday and Vice President Carmichael for spending 
their valuable time on a local athletic matter. The matter involving one 
Jackie Moreland was pursued for several months, and finally it was deter- 
mined impossible to get at the real facts in the case. Mr. Moreland did 
not enter State, the institution had to endure its censure, and the Board of 
Trustees dropped the investigation of the case. 

Committees had been working on the problem of finding new chancel- 
lors for both the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and Woman's 
College in Greensboro. The president was presented with some choices 
that must have caused him considerable conflict. There were a number of 
bright young men on the faculties of the three institutions who had am- 
bitions for the vacant positions and who were considered well-qualified. 
His problem was to select those best suited for the positions and retain 
those who were disappointed on the staff of the university. At a special 
session of the executive committee on 25 February 1957, President Friday 
announced candidates whom he wanted presented to the board for cer- 
tain of the vacant positions. First he nominated Mr. A. H. Shepard, Jr., 
who had been acting business officer and treasurer, for appointment to 
that position. Mr. Shepard had spent many years in the business office 
at Chapel Hill and was known as an excellent budget officer. For the 
new positions of vice president for graduate study and research, he nomi- 
nated Dr. William M. Whyburn, who had been serving as acting provost. 
Dr. Whyburn was Kenan Professor and chairman of the Department of 
Mathematics at Chapel Hill and had had a distinguished career as a col- 
lege president in Texas. For chancellor at Woman's College, he nominated 
Dr. Gordon W. Blackwell, director of the Institute for Research in Social 
Science at Chapel Hill and Kenan Professor of Sociology. Dr. Blackwell 
was a graduate of Furman University. He received an A.M. from the Uni- 
versity of North Carolina and both an A.M. and a Ph.D. from Harvard 
University. 

For the chancellorship at the University of North Carolina at Chapel 
Hill, the new president nominated William Brantley Aycock, who held a 
B.S. from North Carolina State College and A.M. andJ.D. degrees from 
the University of North Carolina. After distinguished service in the U.S. 
Army during World War II, he came to Chapel Hill for his law degree and 
exhibited brilliant scholarship. He joined the law school faculty in 1948 
and progressed rapidly to a professorship in 1955. He had been acting 
dean of the law school at the university at Chapel Hill and visiting pro- 
fessor of law at the University of Virginia. Those nominations were pre- 



[14] The Consolidated University of North Carolina 

sented to the full Board of Trustees on 25 February and approved with 
enthusiasm. The newly elected chancellors were to take office on 1 July, 
and in the meantime they were to assist in selecting business officers for 
their respective institutions. 

On 8 May 1957 there was a colorful convocation in the William Neal 
Reynolds Coliseum on the campus of North Carolina State College in 
Raleigh for the inauguration of William Clyde Friday as the third presi- 
dent of the Consolidated University of North Carolina and the thirteenth 
president of the University of North Carolina since establishment of the 
position in 1804. The academic procession included more than 450 repre- 
sentatives of the faculties from the three campuses of the university, more 
than 160 delegates from other universities and colleges, more than sev- 
enty-five delegates from learned societies, educational, and professional 
organizations, most of the one-hundred member Board of Trustees, mem- 
bers of the Council of State, the Supreme Court, and numerous other 
delegates. President Friday was regaled by greetings from the university 
world; from the colleges and universities of North Carolina; from the fac- 
ulties of the Consolidated University; from the alumni of North Carolina 
State College, alumni of the university at Chapel Hill; the alumnae of the 
Woman's College; from the students of the Consolidated University; and 
from the public schools of North Carolina. 

The invocation was pronounced by the Reverend William W. Finlator. 
Nostalgic and sentimental remarks were made by his two predecessors — 
Dr. Frank Porter Graham and Mr. Gordon Gray. The chancellors and 
chancellors-elect were present, and after what must have seemed to him 
an inordinate period of time, Vice President William M. Whyburn pre- 
sented the president-elect to Governor Hodges, who asked Chief Justice 
J. Wallace Winborne of the Supreme Court of North Carolina to admin- 
ister to the president-elect the oath of allegiance to the Constitution of the 
United States, the oath of allegiance to the Constitution of the State of 
North Carolina, and the oath of the office of the president. Governor 
Hodges inducted President Friday into the office and introduced him for 
the inaugural address, which was short, eloquent, and germane to the oc- 
casion. He charted the course for his administration as follows: "A great 
challenge to any administration in any college or university is to provide 
those conditions in which the individual faculty member can give his pas- 
sionate devotion to his calling, in which he can feel that his labor in search 
for the truth is understood and respected for its value to the world about 
him, and in which the student may find greater realization of the abilities 
and talents he possesses." To the blare of the band and the happy shouts of 
all who loved the university, the large and enthusiastic audience left the 
Coliseum, and the young president returned to the task of running the 
university. 



Threshold of a New Era [15] 

During the year following the election of chancellors, the university 
was busy with a variety of projects and issues, some of which had accu- 
mulated over the years. Responsibility for athletics was delegated without 
question to the chancellors at Chapel Hill and Raleigh. This was a re- 
affirmation of a delegation that had been made during President Gray's 
administration. A humanities institute was approved for Chapel Hill. In 
time it withered on the vine in about the same way the natural sciences 
institute disappeared. In another matter, the Code was amended to make 
it clear that appeals within an institution should be made to chancellors 
and should be brought to the president only where there was an instance 
of demonstrable denial of procedural rights. 

At Chapel Hill, on nomination of the chancellor, Mr. James Arthur 
Branch was appointed business manager. He had been an employee of the 
university for thirty-three years and for some years had been director of 
purchases and stores. Mr. Wendell McCullen Murray was named business 
manager of the Woman's College. He had been a student at Duke Univer- 
sity and a teacher in North Carolina high schools. For a number of years 
he served as an auditor for the state School Commission in Raleigh and in 
the business office of North Carolina State College. 

One of the ubiquitous problems of the university related to parking. 
Regulations governing this problem on all of the campuses were passed 
and amended from time to time. 

Discussion of the budget consumed much of the time of the board, and 
there was great satisfaction over the action of the 1957 session of the Gen- 
eral Assembly which appropriated sufficient funds to permit an 11 per- 
cent increase in faculty salaries, of which 5 percent was applied across the 
board and 6 percent for merit salary adjustments. It was hoped that this 
would stop the heavy erosion of faculty, which had been occurring over 
the past five years. 

Changes were made in the experimental program in nursing at the 
Woman's College to comply with the regulations of the North Carolina 
Board of Nurse Registration and Nursing Education. The program was 
adjusted to make it feasible for students to gain clinical experience in 
Cone Hospital. 

Extensive amendments to the loan agreement between the Board of 
Trustees and the Housing and Home Finance Agency of the United States 
were approved by the Board of Trustees on 27 May 1957. It was evident 
from the report on undergraduate admissions for the fall semester of 1957 
that the pressure of enrollment in the university was beginning to build. 
The percentage of increase in applications was 33 percent at Woman's Col- 
lege, 13 percent at Chapel Hill, and 50 percent at North Carolina State. 

Trouble was reported in the nuclear reactor at State College. It was 
closed due to leaks that had been discovered. The Atomic Energy Com- 



[i6] The Consolidated University of North Carolina 

mission had made a grant of $80,000 for the reconstruction of the larger 
reactor, which was planned to be in operation by June 1958. 

One of the developments that attracted a great deal of attention during 
President Friday's administration in the early days was educational televi- 
sion. The university at Chapel Hill had been interested in television and 
had incorporated it in one of the teaching departments shortly after World 
War II. The Federal Communications Commission in 1948 froze all chan- 
nel allocations. When this ban was lifted in 1952, 10 percent of all chan- 
nels was reserved for noncommercial broadcasts. The Consolidated Uni- 
versity became interested immediately in obtaining one of the channels. 
President Gray called a two-day conference in Chapel Hill on this subject 
in June 1952. It concluded that it was "desirable for the University to own 
and operate a station." 

On 11 May 1953, the Board of Trustees of the university approved the 
establishment of a station, and Vice President Carmichael, with great 
vigor and enthusiasm, began an appeal to private citizens for financial 
support. Within a little more than a year, he had raised over $2 million to 
purchase equipment, to provide a studio, to construct a transmitter facil- 
ity, and to fund the first two years of broadcasting. On 30 September 
1953 the Federal Communications Commission granted a permit for the 
university to operate a noncommercial educational station on Channel 4, 
and on the same day President Gray announced the appointment of 
Robert F. Schenkkan as Director of Television. In January 1954 the uni- 
versity bought a sixty-five acre tract on Terrell's Mountain in Chatham 
County, about seven miles southwest of Chapel Hill, for the transmitter. 
By the end of the year studios were ready at all three campuses of the 
university. 

The first day of broadcasting was 8 January 1955, and the first program 
was a film presentation followed by a live program of music and dancing 
from the Woman's College in Greensboro. However, the highlight of the 
first day was the live coverage of the Wake Forest-Carolina basketball 
game, which Carolina obligingly won by a score of 95-78. Later that 
year, the General Assembly granted WUNC-TV its first allocation of 
state funds for operating costs. In 1955 the station's signal could reach 
only those people living within a certain radius of Chapel Hill. This in- 
cluded about 35 percent of the state's population. In the fall of 1957, a year 
after President Friday assumed office, the station began a study of the 
effectiveness of educational television in public schools under a grant 
from the Ford Foundation. The experiment for in-school television was a 
continuing affair involving four classes — American and world history, 
ninth-grade physical science, and eight-grade mathematics — each taught 
five days a week. A joint program involving the public schools has been 



Threshold of a New Era [17] 

carried on in cooperation with the State Department of Public Instruction 
since that initial experiment. 

A similar experiment was attempted in the fall of 1959 when the station 
in cooperation with the University Extension Division began offering 
college courses. This program involved completing assignments through 
correspondence. It did not catch on and was later discontinued. 

On 10 October 1962 a committee appointed by Governor Sanford rec- 
ommended the establishment of a statewide television network. Congress 
had authorized in the Educational Television Facilities Act matching funds 
for the construction of such projects. The General Assembly in 1963 ap- 
propriated $1,250,000 in capital funds and $250,000 for operations of what 
came to be known as Phase 1 of the expansion, which included transmit- 
ters in Columbia, Concord, Asheville, and Linville. The Columbia trans- 
mitter was the first completed and began broadcasting on Channel 2 in 
September 1965, but it was not until May 1966 that the microwave links 
connecting the -system were completed. Ashevlle (Channel 33), Concord 
(Channel 58), and Linville (Channel 17) began operation in 1967, thus 
completing Phase 1 of the program. This almost doubled the number of 
North Carolina residents who could receive WUNC-TV broadcasts. Per- 
sons in the state who could not receive the broadcasts brought pressure 
for further expanding the facility, and the 1967 General Assembly voted 
an additional appropriation for Phase 2 of the university television net- 
work's expansion. Between 1970 and 1972, Wilmington (Channel 39) be- 
gan broadcasting, as did Greenville (Channel 25) and Winston-Salem 
(Channel 26). At this point it was reported that 96 percent of the people in 
North Carolina could receive WUNC-TV. 

The first color program was aired in 1968. One of these programs was 
"Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood" for children. In 1969 the office of director 
of educational television was reestablished under the General Administra- 
tion. This permitted a much needed expansion of the staff into such areas 
as programming and public relations. Dr. George E. Bair assumed office 
on 1 July 1969. He received his B. A. from Haverford College and his M. A. 
and Ph.D. from the University of Pennsylvania. He had been professor of 
English at Clemson University and was at the time of his appointment 
director of education for the South Carolina educational television net- 
work. This launched public television into a more productive period, but 
there was still much that would have to be done in the years ahead. 

The University of North Carolina received its first grant from the Na- 
tional Science Foundation to sponsor a six-week institute for high-school 
teachers of science and mathematics in 1957. The grant was used in the 
summer session of 1957, and fellowships were provided for seventy-five 
high school teachers. The National Science Foundation also provided a 



[18] The Consolidated University of North Carolina 

grant of $267,000 for the academic year 1957-58 to provide science and 
mathematics instruction to high school teachers from North Carolina and 
the southeastern region. It is interesting to note that these grants preceded 
the excitement that occurred over Sputnik launched by the Russians in 
the fall of 1957. 

At a special session of the executive committee on 29 July 1957, Chan- 
cellor Aycock presented a long and involved recommendation with refer- 
ence to the private patient service in Memorial Hospital, which was ap- 
proved. The manager of the private patient service was thereafter to be 
appointed by the dean of the School of Medicine and his duties were 
spelled out in detail. An advisory committee on private patient services 
was to be appointed by the dean of the medical school. The recommenda- 
tion also increased the ceiling on total compensation of medical clinical 
faculty members. Department heads were permitted to earn in salary and 
from supplementary compensation, $27,500; professors, $25,000; associ- 
ate professors, $23,000; assistant professors, $17,000; and instructors, 
$13,000. Detailed regulations concerning income were approved and the 
method of expenditure of such funds stipulated. For the time being this 
brought a degree of order and consensus into a problem that had been 
nagging the Division of Health Affairs. 

President Friday brought to the attention of the executive committee 
on 9 September some problems that had developed with the Board of 
Higher Education and the Department of Administration. He requested 
help from the trustees in clarifying the university's position with those of 
the Board of Higher Education and the new Department of Administra- 
tion that had been added to the governor's office. He recommended that 
some procedure should be established to bring the executive committee 
or a representative subcommittee together with the Board of Higher 
Education or its representatives to discuss the future relationships of the 
Board of Higher Education and the university administration; that the 
administration be authorized to proceed with the self-study program ap- 
proved by the executive committee 8 July; and that authority be given to 
the university administration to use the needed funds out of research re- 
ceipts (not state appropriation) to get on with the job of self-study. His 
request was approved and a subcommittee of the trustees, with Mr. 
Thomas Pearsall as chairman, was authorized to meet with the Board of 
Higher Education and to make recommendations on the relationships be- 
tween the university and the Board of Higher Education. Mr. George 
Watts Hill's statement about the relationship had some disturbing over- 
tones. He asserted that "the Board of Higher Education has the legal 
power, for all practical purposes, to control University operation if it car- 
ries out its purposes to operate a coordinated system of higher educa- 



Threshold of a New Era [19] 

tion." He pointed out that university trustees would be subordinate to the 
Board of Higher Education if that board should exert its full powers. He 
called on the Board of Trustees to face the gravity of the situation with a 
firm determination to maintain the basic integrity of the university, and 
he asserted that the university could do a better job of planning than the 
Board of Higher Education. 

The university had been experimenting with a testing program for 
freshman admissions over a two-year period beginning in 1955. The All- 
University Committee on Admissions Policies had, after studying the 
experiment carefully, recommended that the university adopt a new pro- 
gram using the Scholastic Aptitude Tests rather than the achievement test 
that had been used in the experiment. This test would be administered by 
an outside agency and would be given in North Carolina high schools. 
The admissions policy committee recommended that there should be a 
uniform cutoff for all three institutions in the university. Provision was 
made, however, for a faculty committee to waive the minimum score. 
This was the beginning of a testing program that has persisted over many 
years. Other institutions in the state gradually joined the university in re- 
quiring the Scholastic Aptitude Tests; however, uniformity has not been 
required in the cutoff scores, and these have been administered with pro- 
visions for exceptions. 

One of the significant innovations of this period was the agreement by 
the executive committee of the Board of Trustees that the university at 
Chapel Hill should enter into an agreement with the Sperry-Rand Cor- 
poration to accept a partial gift of an 1103B computer with accessories. 
The value placed on the computer was $2,285,000. The net balance of the 
cost to the institution was $1,200,000. It was contemplated that for a pe- 
riod of years the U.S. Bureau of the Census would annually purchase 
time worth $700,000 on the machine. Other funds were expected from 
the National Science Foundation. It was expected that the university 
would provide $150,000 a year for operational costs of the computer. At 
the time this was considered a great advance for the university, for the 
Research Triangle area, for the state, and for other institutions in the 
southeast. The deal was eventually consummated, due in part to the 
leadership of Vice President William Whyburn, and the university at 
Chapel Hill built a large addition to Phillips Hall to house the computer. 
Perhaps nothing with the possible exception of the nuclear reactor on the 
State College campus was so exciting to the academic community as the 
acquisition of this old UNIVAC, which launched the computer age for 
the whole area; however, it should be said that this machine based on vac- 
uum tubes was soon made obsolete by the introduction of the transistor. 

The three institutions in the Consolidated University carried their 



[20] The Consolidated University of North Carolina 

long-range planning along at a rapid pace during 1957-58. One of the 
first tasks was to assemble a list of capital improvements that were sched- 
uled for each campus. The list was reported to the executive committee 
of the Board of Trustees on 13 January 1958. It must have seemed to those 
who first saw it unveiled to be a wish list that might take a half century to 
accomplish. Looking over the list almost thirty years later, one is im- 
pressed by the imagination and foresight that were exercised in assem- 
bling the list. Most of the eighty-nine projects assembled by the three in- 
stitutions have been achieved, and along with them, others that had not 
been dreamed of in those days. 

Planning has occupied an important position among the activities of 
the university since 1956. In the spring of that year President Eisenhower 
appointed the Committee on Education Beyond the High School and 
charged it with the responsibility of laying before the American people 
the problems of education beyond the high school. The commission held 
a series of meetings throughout the nation over the next six months and 
circulated a preliminary report that became the basis for the second and 
final report that was issued in July 1957. It was this report that set the 
stage for the intense planning activity in higher education seen over the 
past thirty years. 

The report pointed out that revolutionary changes were occurring in 
American education, and that the nation had been thrust into a challeng- 
ing new educational era since World War II by "the convergence of power- 
ful forces — an explosion of knowledge and population, a burst of tech- 
nological and economic advance, the outbreak of idealogical conflict and 
the uprooting of old political and cultural patterns on a worldwide scale, 
and an unparalleled demand by Americans for more and better education." 

It was concluded that the gap between educational needs and educa- 
tional effort was widening ominously. Reference was made to the dra- 
matic strides being taken by the Soviet Union. It was pointed out that the 
next twenty years would require leaders in science and engineering, in 
business and industry, in government and politics, in foreign affairs and 
diplomacy, and in education and civic affairs. It was urged "that world 
peace and the survival of mankind may well depend on the way in which 
we educate the citizens and leaders of tomorrow." 

The study was prophetic in pointing out what needed to be done in 
planning for an adequate supply of competent teachers, in providing as- 
sistance to students, in providing for the diversity of educational oppor- 
tunities, in financing higher education, and in delineating the role of the 
federal government. These matters have provided an agenda for higher 
education in this generation and have resulted in some consensus and in 
many conflicts. 

The Board of Higher Education deemed that its role in North Carolina 



Threshold of a New Era [21] 

was to plan a system. The Board of Trustees of the University of North 
Carolina held that its role was to plan for a great university, and the uni- 
versity set out with a singleness of purpose to carry out its role. Commit- 
tees were set up on each of the campuses to examine every aspect of each, 
including present resources; projected student enrollment; and projected 
needs for finances, faculty, physical facilities, and student services in the 
years ahead. 

The call for planning went down to the departmental level, and with- 
out a doubt some of the requests for the future represented an over- 
ambitious concept of the resources of the state and perhaps in some in- 
stances even empire-building, but the various plans were subjected to 
careful scrutiny and to fine tuning. In time the university and the Board 
of Higher Education engaged in some planning together, as will be 
pointed out. When the two were merged in 1972, their planning efforts 
were also merged. 

The University of North Carolina was engaged almost continuously in 
long-range planning for over a decade after 1957-58. In that year each of 
the three campuses of the university made thorough studies of its total 
operations and developed comprehensive plans for the future. Following 
this initial planning, each campus made another detailed self-study for 
the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools. These studies were 
used as a basis for evaluating and updating their plans. In 1966 Governor 
Dan K. Moore requested the Board of Higher Education to develop a 
comprehensive plan for higher education in North Carolina. The board 
invited the cooperation of all publicly supported colleges and univer- 
sities, and each institution was asked to undertake a long-range plan that 
would follow an outline suggested by the board. A University of North 
Carolina Committee on Long Range Planning with representatives from 
each of its constituent institutions and with Vice President A. K. King as 
chairman was assigned the task of answering the request of the board. 
Each representative on the committee directed a study on his own cam- 
pus and edited the final report. A summary of these reports was pub- 
lished by the consolidated office and transmitted to the Board of Higher 
Education. The study furnished the best estimate available of the prob- 
able demand for university-educated manpower in North Carolina for the 
decade following 1968. It also showed clearly that the University of North 
Carolina, along with other state institutions furnishing information used 
in the study, had programs either in place or in the planning stage that 
could meet this demand. It was demonstrated that the need could be met 
if the university were given sufficient support to provide the necessary 
staff and facilities and if enough qualified and motivated students should 
apply for admission to certain critical fields. 

On 13 January 1958 the executive committee reaffirmed for the third 



[22] The Consolidated University of North Carolina 

time since 195 1 the 15-percent rule for the admission of nonresident 
undergraduate students. A 10-percent rule had been in effect at an earlier 
date. The regulation had so many exceptions concerning children of 
alumni, students in programs serving a regional purpose, nonresidents 
born in North Carolina, foreign students, and students who might fill 
quotas of special programs not filled by residents, that it was not a very 
effective restraint for nonresidents who desired to study in the university. 
Over the years the 1 5-percent rule has been refined and some exceptions 
have been eliminated so that it operates more equitably to exclude non- 
residents. In 1986 the limit was raised to 18 percent. 

The relationship between the Board of Trustees and the Board of Higher 
Education continued to nag the trustees. The subcommittee appointed 
by the governor to confer with the Board of Higher Education came to 
the conclusion that there did exist the possibility of a serious basic conflict 
of authority; that the executive committee should request the Board of 
Higher Education to meet with it; that in its opinion the question of re- 
solving the differences was the responsibility of the trustees; and that they 
should pursue the matter. The subcommittee met with a committee from 
the Board of Higher Education in the governor's office on 20 February 
1958, and Governor Hodges encouraged the two groups to settle their 
difficulties in a spirit of cooperation. The special committee reported that 
representatives of the Board of Higher Education expressed "surprise and 
amazement" at the concern that the subcommittee expressed on behalf of 
the university. They also had misgivings about the advisability of a meet- 
ing between the full board and the full executive committee. Before any 
further meeting, the committee asked the president to provide informa- 
tion about the function, activities, and purposes of the university; about 
any ways in which these were being hindered or retarded by existing 
laws; and about any respects in which the administration or faculty of the 
university thought any existing laws should be changed. It was empha- 
sized that the subcommittee believed that future action in this matter 
should be the responsibility and function of the trustees rather than that 
of the administration of the university. 

At the next meeting of the Board of Trustees following the report of the 
special committee the governor stated to the board in discussing the prob- 
lem, "So I can say to you in complete sincerity that we have a good strong 
responsible committee working on the matter for you and it will be 
done — not so much in a hurry — as it will be done with wisdom and with 
foresight as to what things are at stake in North Carolina education." 

The problem of the Board of Higher Education moved along very 
slowly until a meeting of the full Board of Trustees in Raleigh on 26 May 
1958, when Mr. Thomas Pearsall, chairman of the subcommittee, sub- 



Threshold of a New Era [23] 

mitted a report that had been approved by the executive committee. He 
went into the history of the Board of Higher Education, mentioning that 
some members of the Board of Trustees had felt an awareness of the need 
for a coordinating board. An act establishing the board was passed in 
1955, and the governor appointed its members from outstanding and 
dedicated citizens of the state. With the passage of time and the applica- 
tion of the law, members of the subcommittee and others now appreciated 
the effects of its application and everyday operation, Mr. Pearsall ex- 
plained. He mentioned the call for the executive committee to discuss the 
matter and mentioned that one of those appointed, Mr. Victor S. Bryant, 
had been chairman of the committee that made the study that led to the 
Board of Higher Education. The subcommittee of the executive commit- 
tee had studied the question: "Does the law creating the Board of Higher 
Education deprive the Board of Trustees of the University of the right to 
govern the affairs and policies of the University and, if so, is such de- 
privation injurious to the successful operation of the University?" 

The report to the executive commitee called attention to serious and 
basic conflict of authority between the two boards and recommended that 
the resolution of differences between them was the responsibility of the 
full board. They had gathered information about the functions, activities, 
and purposes of the university and the way the administration or faculty 
of the university thought any existing laws should be changed. Members 
of the committee had talked only informally with the chairman of the 
board. If the Board of Trustees approved, it was ready to confer with the 
Board of Higher Education or its representatives in a sincere effort to re- 
solve any problems that could be resolved without legislation and to try 
to agree upon legislation that would resolve the remaining problems. In 
the report the committee expressed the opinion that the statute under 
which the Board of Higher Education operated, if exercised by the board, 
could deprive the trustees of the university of control of many of the poli- 
cies heretofore exercised by the trustees. They gave as their opinion that 
there was a place for the Board of Higher Education, and that the statutes 
could be amended in such a way as to restore necessary autonomy to the 
Board of Trustees without depriving the Board of Higher Education of 
the authority to meet the purposes for which it was created. Suggestions 
were made for altering the act. The Board of Trustees approved the report 
and referred it to the executive committee to take action to implement the 
basic principles of the report without necessarily being bound by the spe- 
cific statutory changes proposed in the report. 

On Hjuly Mr. Pearsall referred to the action of the full board concern- 
ing the relationship between the trustees and the Board of Higher Educa- 
tion. He reported that his committee believed the matter should not be 



[24] The Consolidated University of North Carolina 

allowed to drag and had tried to fix an early conference date agreeable to 
both groups. The date had been set for 4 or 5 August, and Mr. Pearsall 
requested the appointment of two additional members to the subcommit- 
tee because the Board of Higher Education committee was composed of 
five members. The two new members were authorized. 

On 12 January 1959, Mr. Pearsall made- a brief report on the agreement 
that had been reached between the Board of Higher Education and the 
subcommittee of the executive committee concerning a revision of the 
act creating the Board of Higher Education. The act, together with addi- 
tions and deletions that the two groups had approved, was reproduced in 
the minutes of the Board of Trustees. It deleted permission for the Board 
of Higher Education to operate a coordinated system of higher education 
in North Carolina and substituted that it would cooperate with other 
educational agencies in planning such a system. It was agreed that the 
phrase "determine the major functions and activities of each institution" 
would be replaced by the phrase "allot the major functions and activities 
of each institution." The following statement in the act was deleted: "The 
Board shall make plans for the development of a system of higher educa- 
tion and shall have the power to require such institutions to conform to 
such plans," and a clause was substituted that made it impossible for the 
board to require an institution to abandon or discontinue any existing 
educational function without the approval of the General Assembly. 

In addition, the budgetary authority of the board was considerably re- 
laxed and its authority over requests for transfer of funds was weakened. 
Mr. Pearsall expressed "deep gratitude" to the members of the Board of 
Higher Education and to the members of his own committee for their 
cooperation and moved the adoption of his report and the recommenda- 
tions it contained. The motion was approved and the tensions between 
the two boards were temporarily relaxed when the amendments were 
adopted by the legislature. 

In the midst of the controversy between the two boards, the Greensboro 
Daily News editorial page made the following observations that pointed 
to more than thirteen years of uncertainty: 

Thus the battle of superstructures is joined, and one or a combina- 
tion of these alternatives is possible: 

(1) The State Higher Board . . . might be abolished. A petition 
advocating that was in circulation at Woman's College Monday. In 
our opinion such action would be rash and destructive: North Caro- 
lina's 12 institutions of higher learning . . . badly need supervision to 
avoid duplication and overlapping . . . 

(2) The Consolidated superstructure of the University, now en- 
tirely separated from the three units, could be abolished and indi- 



Threshold of a New Era [25] 

vidual boards of trustees reinstituted at Chapel Hill, Raleigh and 
Greensboro. This procedure would cause a vast reshuffling of power 
and might not be practical or advisable. . . . 

(3) The (other) nine institutions of higher learning . . . might be 
absorbed into an enlarged consolidated university system, with the 
State Higher Board merged in a new concept of power . . . 

(4) Governor Hodges' study committee might redefine or clarify 
power of the State Board of Higher Education to the satisfaction of 
both groups . . . 

The fourth alternative, of course, would be easier for all concerned, 
but it might simply delay tackling the larger organic problem. 



CHAPTER 



Innovations and Tensions 



The Consolidated University of North Carolina was beset by a number 
of outside forces and internal tensions during the decades of the 1950s 
and 1960s. Phenomenal growth occurred with the headcount enrollment 
increasing from 14,798 in 1956 to 47,339 in 1971. The sudden expansion 
overloaded facilites and made it difficult to secure adequate faculties. The 
extent of the problem was not well understood by either the public-at- 
large or the political leaders. There was some criticism of the changing 
mores and customs among students and the radical action of a few stu- 
dents — frequently the offshoot of the civil rights movement and racial 
tensions. Editorials from the conservative press and radio and television 
commentators kept attention focused on the so-called liberalism of the 
university. The national and state political campaigns of i960 tended to 
exaggerate some of the mistaken notions about the university that were 
already in circulation. 

There was a period of intense criticism of the Board of Trustees follow- 
ing the election of board members by the legislature in April 1955. At this 
election, Major L. P. McLendon of Greensboro and Dr. Clarence Poe of 
Raleigh, two prominent and experienced members of the board, were de- 
feated. This election was widely criticized in the press, and the fact that 
members of the legislature were eligible for election to the board was 
pointed out as one of the reasons why reform was needed. It developed 
that the new Board of Higher Education was authorized by the same leg- 
islature, and Governor Hodges appointed Major McLendon as one of the 
initial members of that board. There were many who thought that the 
seeds for strained relationships between the two boards may have been 
planted by this appointment. 

Governor Hodges asked the legislature of 1957 to authorize a commis- 
sion to study the manner of selecting trustees of the University of North 
Carolina. This commission made a feeble attempt to study the problem 
and reported to the legislature in 1959. Suggestions were made during the 
study that the 100-member board was unwieldy and that it was impos- 
sible to find enough persons who would take an interest in the university 

[26] 



Innovations and Tensions [27] 

to serve on the board. It was criticized as a board on which membership 
was sought for the honor rather than for the opportunity to serve. It was 
also charged that the board was dominated by alumni of the university at 
Chapel Hill. No action was taken and the 100-member board continued 
with an occasional editorial sniping at its membership over the years. 
During the dispute with the Board of Higher Education it was even 
dubbed by one editorial as a "fifth wheel." Much of the work of the uni- 
versity board was actually transacted in either regular or specially called 
meetings of the executive committee, which eventually came to have 
twelve members and was presided over by the governor, who also pre- 
sided over the full board. The one hundred members over the years usu- 
ally had the judgment to pick its more distinguished, capable, and dedi- 
cated members for service on the executive committee. It was the high 
credibility of the smaller group that made it almost impregnable from as- 
sault over many years. 

It will be recalled that President Friday at the time of his election had 
placed great emphasis on academic freedom. An All-University Com- 
mittee under the chairmanship of Dean Henry Brandis of the law school 
developed a suggested policy on academic freedom, tenure, and academic 
due process. The visiting committee of the Board of Trustees recom- 
mended to the full board on 23 February 1959 that the statement on this 
matter be adopted by the board. President Friday submitted to the execu- 
tive committee in March of that year the report of the Brandis committee 
and requested that it be approved for inclusion in the Code of the univer- 
sity, which was at that time also in process of revision. Mr. Victor Bryant 
moved that final consideration of the report be deferred until the next 
regular meeting of the executive committee and that the chairman be re- 
quested to appoint a committee of three to which the matter would be 
referred for study and recommendation. 

In May of that year, Mr. Bryant, who had been appointed chairman of 
the special committee, presented a revised draft of the Brandis committee 
report. It was adopted and has come down to the present time with some 
changes and expansions as the official set of regulations on academic free- 
dom, tenure, and due process embodied in the Code. 

The full Board of Trustees at its meeting on 25 May ratified the action 
of the executive committee. In presenting the report, Mr. Bryant stated: 
"To have a good faculty, money alone is not enough. As important as fac- 
ulty salaries may be . . . there is perhaps something else just as important, 
if not more so. It is the right of a faculty member as a responsible person 
to search for, speak and teach the truth without undue interference." 

Among the many problems that confronted the Board of Trustees of 
the University of North Carolina during the early days of President Fri- 



[28] The Consolidated University of North Carolina 

day's administration was that of codifying the laws relating to the univer- 
sity, the by-laws of the Board of Trustees, the duties of university offi- 
cers, and the statement on academic freedom, tenure, and academic due 
process that the board had adopted at an earlier date. Judge Rudolph I. 
Mintz was chairman of a special committee for this purpose that reported 
to the board on 12 November 1962. The suggested Administrative Code 
brought together the statutory law governing the university; the by-laws 
of the board, which had accumulated over a long period of time; a state- 
ment concerning the responsibilities and duties of the officers of the uni- 
versity, which had been adopted during the previous decade; the state- 
ment on academic freedom, tenure, and academic due process, which had 
been formulated by the Brandis committee discussed above; and some 
amendments to several sections that were not covered by the General 
Statutes. 

The General Statutes gave the official name to the university and to 
each of its constituent institutions. There were one hundred trustees, ten 
of whom were required to be women, elected for terms of eight years by 
the General Assembly by joint ballot of both houses. One-fourth were 
elected every two years. The university was incorporated; the law stated 
its property rights, its authority to use receipts, and its power to fix tui- 
tion and fees and to make provisions for students who were unable to pay 
their tuition and fees. The statutes also outlined the immunities of the 
university from taxation and for liability from torts. 

The by-laws of the board contained a mixture of enactments by the 
General Assembly and by the board itself. The membership, it was pointed 
out, included by statute the superintendent of public instruction. The 
former governors were made members of the board for life upon expira- 
tion of their terms. The power to vote was extended to all members of the 
board. Membership on the board of any trustee, except one who was a 
member of the armed forces, was forfeited if he were absent from all 
meetings over a period of two years. The board also had the power to 
remove a trustee for improper conduct. This action had to be taken at 
a regular meeting of the board. The legislature of 1963 stipulated that 
sixty-five members of the board would have to be present if such action 
were taken. 

A statute stipulated that the governor was chairman of the board and of 
its executive committee, with the power to designate an acting chairman 
if he were absent. The by-laws also stipulated that there should be a secre- 
tary elected from the membership of the board and an assistant secretary 
whose term of office would be concurrent with that of the secretary. It 
was provided that the assistant secretary could not be a member of the 
board and would be paid such salary as the board might establish. De- 



Innovations and Tensions [29] 

tailed regulations covered keeping the minutes of the board and circulat- 
ing the agenda for board meetings. 

The Board of Trustees was required to hold three regular meetings each 
calendar year, one of which had to be held in Raleigh during a meeting of 
the General Assembly in the years when it convened. Provision was also 
made for special meetings that the governor could call and that could be 
called by the secretary at the written request of not less than twenty 
members of the board. With certain exceptions, a special meeting could 
consider any matter of business relating to the university. It could not re- 
voke or alter any order, resolution, or vote of any regular meeting, or 
take up any matter that had been specifically reserved for a regular meet- 
ing of the board. 

The draft proposed by Judge Mintz provided that "not less than ten 
shall constitute a quorum and shall be competent to exercise the full 
power and authority for the accomplishment of the business of the Uni- 
versity." This .was objected to, and a substitute motion provided that it be 
referred to the General Assembly in 1963, with a recommendation that 
the statute making ten a quorum be changed to make it twenty. When it 
was considered by the legislature, the quorum was changed from ten to 
fifty-one. 

Strict regulations were passed regarding the notice of meetings, with 
ten days notice for a regular meeting, five days for a special meeting, and 
five days for a meeting of the executive committee, except in emergency 
situations when the chairman could call a meeting with only three days 
notice. 

The by-laws stipulated the order of business for a meeting, and adopted 
Robert's Rules of Order as a guide except when there were specific rules and 
regulations that did not comply with Robert's Rules of Order. 

The powers of the Board of Trustees as stipulated in the statutes were 
summarized, including the authority to exercise corporate power to make 
necessary rules and regulations for the university; to appoint a president 
and, on his recommendation, other officials and faculty members (who 
could be removed for misconduct, incompetence, or neglect of duty); to 
approve or disapprove the awarding of honorary degrees; to make rules 
and regulations governing the use of streets, drives, and parking areas; to 
appoint from their own number an executive committee "which shall be 
clothed with such powers as the Trustees may confer"; and to appoint one 
or more fiscal agents as necessary. 

The Code provided for the election of standing committees. Regular 
elections were to be held at the commencement meeting of the board. 
The standing committees except the executive committee were given the 
authority to elect a chairman from their membership at the first meeting 



[30] The Consolidated University of North Carolina 

each year following elections. Each committee except the executive com- 
mittee was required to make a written report to the board at least once 
each year. 

The executive committee was the most important of the eleven com- 
mittees stipulated in the Mintz Code. It consisted of twelve members, 
who were required to be members of the board and were elected for terms 
of six years. The governor was ex-officio chairman of the executive com- 
mittee but he did not have the right to vote unless he were an elected 
member of the committee. The governor had the right to vote in case of a 
tie vote. The executive committee was required to hold at least six regu- 
larly scheduled meetings each calendar year, and special meetings could 
be held at the discretion of the chairman or upon request of three mem- 
bers of the committee. It had full power to act for the board but it could 
not alter or revoke any order, resolution, or vote of a regular or special 
meeting of the Board of Trustees, and it did not have the power to elect 
the president or any member of his staff or the chancellor or business 
manager of any of the constituent institutions. The committee had to re- 
port in writing all of its actions to the Board of Trustees. It reviewed the 
proposed budgets of the institutions before they could be submitted to 
the Advisory Budget Commission of North Carolina. It also approved or 
disapproved all appointments to the faculties and staffs of the institutions 
comprising the University of North Carolina that were proposed by the 
president and that were for terms of more than one year. 

The Finance Committee consisted of seven trustees who served for a 
period of four years. Its duty was to direct and supervise the investment 
of university funds and to have jurisdiction over the duties that had previ- 
ously been performed by the Escheats Committee. 

The Building Committee consisted of three subcommittees, one for 
each of the institutions, and of five trustees who served for a period of 
four years. They were to work with the chancellors and business manag- 
ers of the respective institutions and the president and the business officer 
and treasurer of the university on such matters as the selection of archi- 
tects or engineers, the approval of building sites, the approval of plans 
and specifications, and the acceptance of all completed buildings and 
projects. 

A Visiting Committee of twenty-one trustees to be elected by the 
board for terms of four years was provided. It was responsible for visit- 
ing, either as a body or through subcommittees, the campuses of the uni- 
versity once each calendar year or more often if deemed advisable. It 
could devote attention to virtually any aspect of the operation of the in- 
stitution that it might choose, and it could interview any officer, faculty 
member, employee, or student, or give any one of these a hearing on re- 



Innovations and Tensions [31] 

quest in writing. It was responsible for making a biennial report to the 
board at the fall meeting in even years. 

Other committees were responsible for the areas of real property and 
memorials, naming buildings, honorary degrees, and the O. Max Gard- 
ner Award. Two new committees were created, one to prepare nomina- 
tions for the various standing committees and a second on university de- 
velopment. Two committees were discontinued, one on home economics 
and the other on agriculture. It was difficult for the administration to deal 
with a special committee that had oversight of a program similar to the 
ones discontinued; however, a Committee on Health Affairs was con- 
tinued. Its duty was "to advise and counsel the University Administration 
in reference to all matters pertaining to the work of the Division of Health 
Affairs." There was some question as to whether this committee over the 
years had a steadying or a disquieting effect on the operation of that im- 
portant division during its formative years. 

Finally, there was an Admissions Advisory Committee that had the 
duty of counseling the university administration on "matters pertaining 
to the admission of students in all schools and departments." This com- 
mittee was called on from time to time by the administration for advice 
on such matters as out-of-state admissions, testing requirements, and 
other admissions problems. 

Chapter 3 of the Code was devoted to the titles, responsibilities, duties, 
and functions of the principal officers of the university. It gave to the 
president broad general powers, with the injunction that "he shall exer- 
cise complete executive authority over the institutions comprising The 
University of North Carolina." It was made clear that he was the official 
spokesman for the institution. His authority was described in sufficient 
detail to leave no question concerning its scope. The duties of the prin- 
cipal general officers under the central administration of the Consolidated 
University were also stipulated in some detail; however, in the decade 
ahead, there were frequent changes in the titles and duties of some of the 
staff and additions to the staff rendered some of this section obsolete. The 
duties of the chancellors were described in sufficient detail to make it clear 
that they were responsible to the president for the administration of their 
institutions and also to give them broad powers under his direction. A 
new section assured that the faculty and chancellor in each of the institu- 
tions were to exercise full and final authority in the regulation of student 
conduct and in matters of student discipline. 

Chapter 4 of the Code added to the rules and regulations of the univer- 
sity the new section on academic freedom, tenure, and academic due pro- 
cess, to which there has been previous reference. It defined academic free- 
dom and guaranteed it to the faculty. It went into the matter of academic 



[32] The Consolidated University of North Carolina 

tenure in great detail stipulating the procedure through which a member 
of the faculty would progress from instructor to full professor. It also 
contained an extensive section on suspension and discharge of faculty 
members, which guaranteed due process and an opportunity for appeal. 

The work of the Mintz Committee gave the university a complete cod- 
ification of its rules and regulations for the* first time and was a valuable 
instrument in university government over the next decade as well as a 
substantial guide in the preparation of a code for the restructured univer- 
sity after 1971. 

Criticisms of governance of the university continued and even grew 
sharper in the next decade. It was charged that the hundred-member 
board was too cumbersome; that it contained too many graduates of the 
university at Chapel Hill; that it included too many members of the Gen- 
eral Assembly; and that it was in the hands of a small, elite group that 
really governed the university through the executive committee of the 
board. There were movements from time to time to effect changes. The 
other state-supported colleges complained that the powerful university 
board was able to dominate the appropriation of state funds and always 
received the lion's share. Perhaps the first attempt to do something about 
this dominance of the board was the creation of the Board of Higher Edu- 
cation in 1955. Some of the dissension between the two boards has al- 
ready been described. From time to time there were commissions ap- 
pointed to study the Board of Trustees of the Consolidated University 
and recommend reforms. One of these has already been mentioned. 

In the late 1960s, another commission under Governor Hodges at- 
tempted to make recommendations for improving the Board of Trustees. 
It failed to make a dent in the structure and the board continued its activi- 
ties under the Code and with guidance from the powerful executive com- 
mittee, until the crisis over restructuring in 1971 resulted in what some 
thought was a solution to the problem. 

One of the dramatic developments in higher education during the last 
thirty years has been the increasing identification of universities with the 
economic health of the regions in which they are located. Examples of 
this are the areas around Stanford University and the University of Cali- 
fornia at Berkeley and around Harvard University and Massachusetts In- 
stitute of Technology in Cambridge, Massachusetts. In North Carolina, 
since about 1955 and primarily because of the location of the University 
of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Duke University in Durham, and 
North Carolina State University at Raleigh, there has been a phenomenal 
development in what has come to be called the Research Triangle. As 
early as 1952, the late Dr. Howard Odum, founder of the Institute for 
Research in Social Science at the university at Chapel Hill and professor 



Innovations and Tensions [33] 

of sociology, was advocating the establishment of a research institute to 
be located near the Raleigh-Durham Airport. Another individual, Mr. 
Romeo H. Guest, a graduate of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology 
and president of a Greensboro contracting firm, became convinced that 
the way to bring industry to the south was to establish a high-tech center 
that would attract research scientists. He discussed his ideas with others 
and became a promoter of what he called the Research Triangle, an area 
that he proposed locating near the Raleigh-Durham Airport where he 
also envisioned a research center. 

The university at Chapel Hill invited a panel of physicists from Prince- 
ton, Cornell, and Harvard to survey its Department of Physics and make 
recommendations for its improvement. In their report in 1954, it was rec- 
ommended that "the opportunity should be seized to . . . build a strong 
center of pure physics, of physics technology and engineering physics" in 
the area because "the Chapel Hill-Raleigh-Durham Triangle has the po- 
tentiality to grow into the great physics center of the Southeast." By 1954 
it appeared that the research center envisioned by Messrs. Odum and 
Guest and others was an idea whose time was fast approaching. It needed 
only an advocate. 

Early in 1955 Mr. Guest approached Governor Luther H. Hodges, 
who had succeeded to that office in the previous November on the death 
of Governor William B. Umstead, with the idea for the research center. 
Governor Hodges immediately saw the center as potentially a great stimu- 
lus to the industrial development and economic growth of the state and he 
became its enthusiastic advocate. 

In the spring of 1955 Governor Hodges appointed the Research Tri- 
angle Committee, chaired by Mr. Robert M. Hanes, a well-known in- 
dustrialist from Winston-Salem. The committee, which served infor- 
mally for some time, was chartered in September 1956. By this time, 
President Friday, the chancellors at Chapel Hill and Raleigh, and the 
president of Duke University had become involved. They also saw not 
only the potential for industrial development but a great opportunity for 
enhancing scientific research in the area. On the recommendation of 
President Friday, Dr. George L. Simpson, Jr., became its director. Dr. 
Simpson was a professor of sociology in the university at Chapel Hill and 
had been one of Dr. Odum's most brilliant students. He was thoroughly 
familiar with Dr. Odum's dream of a research center and was engaged in 
revising Dr. Odum's monumental study, Southern Regions. The Research 
Triangle, encouraged by the academic members who were now caught up 
in the enterprise, made a study to determine how many faculty members 
at the three universities were involved in research related to the interests 
that were being cultivated by the committee. They found the number to 



[34] The Consolidated University of North Carolina 

be nearly nine hundred. In September 1957 the Research Triangle ac- 
quired its first land and in December 1958, under the wise and capable 
leadership of Mr. Archie K. Davis, Chairman of the Board of Wachovia 
Bank and Trust Company, the committee changed its name to the Re- 
search Triangle Foundation of North Carolina, a nonprofit corporation, 
and established Research Triangle Park, a profit corporation, as its wholly 
owned subsidiary. The board of the foundation included the governor, 
eight individuals representing the universities, and sixteen representatives 
from business and industry. 

Initially, Mr. Robert Hanes was chairman of the board and Mr. Davis 
president. President Friday and the heads of the three universities were inti- 
mately involved in the planning, and members of the Board of Trustees of 
the Consolidated University — notably George Watts Hill — were also ac- 
tive in the enterprise. By the end of 1958 Mr. Davis's campaign had raised 
pledges and contributions of $1.5 million. The figure reached $2 million 
by i960. 

One of the first things that the Research Triangle Foundation did was 
make a grant toward the establishment of the Research Triangle Institute. 
Two years earlier in January 1957 Dr. Simpson had recommended the or- 
ganization of a research institute devoted to high-level scientific research 
sponsored by government and industry. The institute became a reality on 
29 December 1958 when the Research Triangle Institute was formally in- 
corporated as a nonprofit organization owned entirely by the Consoli- 
dated University and Duke University. 

Mr. George Herbert, former executive associate director of the Stan- 
ford Research Institute in California, was elected the institute's first presi- 
dent. Its Board of Governors consisted of twelve members representing 
the universities, twelve from business and industry, and the president of 
the Research Triangle Institute. The choice of Mr. Herbert was particu- 
larly fortunate. He soon developed an attachment for North Carolina and 
has been one of the important builders of the state during this generation. 

The Research Triangle Institute was ready for business in 1959. The 
Atomic Energy Commission became one of the institute's earliest clients. 
Its $160,000 grant represented 40 percent of the institute's contracts for 
the first year. Mr. Herbert opened an office in Durham until the first unit 
of the institute could be completed. In May, Chemstrand Corporation an- 
nounced that it would build a $1 million laboratory in the park for re- 
search in chemical fibers. In October, a $2.5 million laboratory for re- 
search in polymers, provided by the Dreyfus Foundation, was announced 
by Governor Hodges. 

After a few years, Dr. George Simpson left to become an associate di- 
rector of NASA and later chancellor of the university system of Georgia. 



Innovations and Tensions [35] 

His creative ideas gave indispensable impetus to the Research Triangle 
Foundation in its formative years. 

Perhaps the one aspect of the Research Triangle that has been most bene- 
ficial to the university community has been the Research Triangle Insti- 
tute. Department heads and faculty members of the university played key 
roles in planning and developing major research programs. There was a 
constant exchange of information and a sharing of facilities between the 
institute and the university, and frequent seminars, lectures, and sym- 
posia benefited both groups. Many of the institute's staff were enrolled in 
graduate courses for credit at the universities, and a number of university 
advanced-degree students found employment with the institute upon 
graduation. "The knowledge gained through this participation and repre- 
sentation," President Friday said in 1959, "affords the University the op- 
portunity of cooperation in a way that strengthens both the Institute pro- 
gram and the research activity of our institutions." By 1985 the institute 
had about 1,150 full-time and part-time employees, a beautiful campus, 
and over $53 million in research contracts. 

The rapid growth in the number of corporations that located research 
laboratories and high-technology factories in the Research Triangle Park 
has made the area one of the largest research and development centers in 
the nation. The growth was steady in the early years with six companies 
having facilities in the park in 1965 and sixteen in 1970. During the first 
half of the 1970s this number remained unchanged, a result no doubt of 
stagflation — high inflation and unemployment rates — and its crippling 
effect on the nation's economy in those years. Between 1975 and 1980 the 
number of companies in the park doubled from sixteen to thirty-two. By 
1986 eleven more companies had added their names to the list, making a 
total of forty-three. The list has been an impressive one including such 
firms as General Electric, Data General, IBM, Glidden, Burroughs- 
Wellcome, Northern Telecom, and the U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency. Still, the Research Triangle Park, which includes more than 
6,500 acres, has managed to maintain a park atmosphere. Local zoning by 
the park required each development to be on no less than eight acres, and 
no more than 15 percent of any tract could be developed. Furthermore, 
all construction had to be at least 1 50 feet from the lot line, meaning that 
the research laboratories and high-tech factories are set among southern 
pines, oak, and hickory trees creating, according to one writer, "a real 
park — not an industrial village." By 1985, 26,000 people were employed 
in the research triangle, and the annual payroll was over $1 billion. The 
result was not only a great scientific and economic revolution in central 
North Carolina, but also a serious traffic problem. 

In 1966 the Triangle Universities Computation Center (TUCC) was 



[36] The Consolidated University of North Carolina 

chosen to provide computing services for the educational research and 
administrative needs of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 
Duke, and North Carolina State. Grants from the National Science Foun- 
dation and the North Carolina Board of Science and Technology helped 
to defray the costs. 

The National Humanities Center, a place for advanced study in the hu- 
manities, was opened in the triangle in the late 70s. The presence of the 
three universities and their libraries along with the attractive location of 
the center have drawn some of the most eminent scholars in the world to 
North Carolina for a year of advanced and creative study. 

A constant concern of the university has always been the budget appro- 
priation that it receives from the state legislature and the administration of 
that budget by the governor's office. Governor Hodges reorganized his 
office to provide a Department of Administration in which the budget 
was administered by the Budget Bureau. The first director of the Depart- 
ment of Administration was Mr. Paul A. Johnson, a member of the staff 
of the Institute of Government at Chapel Hill. Mr. Johnson was familiar 
with the problems of the university in administering the budget. He ad- 
vocated greater flexibility for university officials in supervising the ex- 
penditure of university appropriations. Under his able leadership and 
with the cooperation of Mr. A. H. Shepard, Jr., business officer and trea- 
surer, and other fiscal officers of the state-supported institutions, an im- 
proved structure and form of the budget was authorized by the legislature 
and adopted. This new approach to budgeting included three parts. The 
first, designated the "A" budget, embraced a continuation of the previous 
year's activities. The second, known as the "B" budget, included all funds 
for enhancing and adding to the activities of an institution. The "C" bud- 
get included all capital facilities. The Department of Administration, 
with the approval of the Board of Higher Education and the active re- 
quest of the university administration, sought discretion in the allocation 
of appropriated salary-increase funds. This made possible the use of such 
funds on a merit basis. The idea of a continuation budget, an enhance- 
ment budget, and a capital improvement budget and the discretionary use 
of salary funds has continued to the present day. 

In 1959 a budget crisis occurred for the university. As reported in the 
Charlotte News for 25 February, "Out of all the statistics piled on the Gen- 
eral Assembly's desk in Raleigh this week, one bundle of numbers stood 
out: the Hodges administration's incredibly tightfisted budget recommen- 
dations for the Consolidated University of North Carolina." 

President Friday called for the assistance of the Board of Trustees on 
23 February. He made it clear that if the recommendations of the Ad- 
visory Budget Commission should stand that "we shall not be able to 



Innovations and Tensions [37] 

maintain the level of excellence and quality the University is known 
throughout the world to possess." He presented Chancellors Aycock, 
Blackwell, and Bostian for a lengthy discussion and explanation of the 
budget recommendations. Vice President William D. Carmichael, Jr., 
made an especially stirring statement on behalf of faculty salaries and 
gave dramatic illustrations of offers that had been made to members of the 
faculty. The burden of his remarks was that "North Carolina has become 
a happy hunting ground for universities on the prowl for distinguished 
teachers and researchers." 

The Board of Trustees, the state press, alumni, students, faculty mem- 
bers, members of the General Assembly, and many other friends of the 
university responded to its call. In May 1959 the outcome was still in 
doubt. President Friday reported that the original request of the trustees 
for the "B" budget of $11,799,997 had been cut by the Board of Higher 
Education to $6,093, 174. This was further reduced by the Advisory Bud- 
get Commission to $1,938,483. The consolidated administration had re- 
vised its original request downward to $5,227,600. He urged the execu- 
tive committee to support the restoration of at least $5,227,600. The 
request was endorsed, and he was directed to urge the General Assembly 
to appropriate this amount of money. The efforts that were made to re- 
place the funds were partially successful, and the General Assembly pro- 
vided in the appropriation bill $3,483,289 for faculty salary adjustments 
to be allocated on a merit basis by the administration of the university. It 
was President Friday's opinion that "these funds have enabled us to retain 
our faculties and to attract additional capable teaching and research per- 
sonnel." He warned, however, "that the struggle to maintain a competi- 
tive salary scale is a never-ending one." 

President Friday continued working on his top-level administrative 
staff. Dr. Donald B. Anderson was appointed provost on 26 May 1958. 
He had been a member of the faculty at North Carolina State College 
since 1928. He held a Ph.D. from Ohio State University and had done 
graduate work for a year at the University of Vienna. At North Carolina 
State he had been head of the Division of Biological Sciences, associate 
dean, and dean of the graduate school. His duties included primary con- 
cern for the undergraduate program of the university, oversight of educa- 
tional television and the admissions testing program, and the selection 
and promotion of faculty personnel. 

Chancellor Bostian announced on 6 November 1958 that he desired to 
relinquish the chancellorship of State College on 1 July of the following 
year. He had served for five years and had run the affairs of North Caro- 
lina State with an even hand. It was his own personal desire to return to 
teaching while he was still young enough to have a further productive ca- 



[38] The Consolidated University of North Carolina 

reer. His resignation was accepted by the Board of Trustees with grateful 
appreciation and a nominating committee was appointed to make a search 
for his successor. 

On 10 August 1959 President Friday recommended the appointment as 
Chancellor of Dr. John Tyler Caldwell, who was then forty-seven years of 
age. He was a native of Mississippi, a graduate of Mississippi State Col- 
lege, and held a master's degree from Duke University. He subsequently 
studied at Columbia and received his Ph.D. in political science from 
Princeton in 1939. He had had wide experience in teaching, was a com- 
mander in the Navy, had served as President of Alabama College, and at 
the time of his election was president of the university of Arkansas. When 
he was presented to the Board of Trustees, members of the selection com- 
mittee paid high tribute to his promise as a chancellor and explained that 
they had looked both without and within the state for the best person 
available to lead North Carolina State. It was known that there were some 
who wanted this position to go to a North Carolinian, and there were 
candidates who felt that they deserved the position. Dr. Caldwell's con- 
nection with the institution turned out to be a happy one, and he soon 
became a popular leader of both the students and faculty. He also proved 
to be a valuable resource to the entire university. 

Dr. William M. Whyburn resigned from his position as vice president 
for graduate studies and research on 23 May i960. He had had a long and 
distinguished career as teacher, college president, and research scholar. 
He accepted administration in the Consolidated University as a matter of 
duty and discharged the functions both of provost and then of vice presi- 
dent for graduate study with distinction. His contribution to the Re- 
search Triangle and his leadership in establishing the computation center 
in Chapel Hill were among his enduring services to the Consolidated 
University. The duties of the vice president and provost and those of the 
vice president for graduate studies and research were merged, and Dr. 
Anderson assumed the title of vice president for graduate studies and re- 
search. This completed the staffing of the consolidated office and the 
principal positions in the three constituent institutions. However, after 
two years at the Woman's College, Chancellor Blackwell had an oppor- 
tunity to become president of Florida State University. The offer was so 
attractive that he felt that he could not turn it down. It was also no secret 
that Chancellor Blackwell was dissatisfied with the degree of support that 
his institution received from the legislature. He had performed with dis- 
tinction and had the love and respect of the students, faculty, and alumnae 
of the Woman's College. His resignation was widely regretted and was a 
genuine loss to the university. Dr. W. W. Pierson was called on once again 
to act as chancellor for 1960-61, and a search committee was constituted 
to find a candidate for that responsible position. Dr. Pierson rendered a 



Innovations and Tensions [39] 

genuine service to the institution on the two occasions that he acted as 
chancellor. During the first term, 1956-57, he drew the staff together 
after a traumatic period and turned over a smoothly functioning organi- 
zation to Chancellor Blackwell. In his second term, he carried on the 
plans of the previous administration and at the end of the year, once 
again, left an educationally sound organization for his successor. 

The death of Vice President William Donald Carmichael, Jr., on 27 
January 1961 was a severe blow to the General Administration and a loss 
to the entire university community. He gave, without consideration to his 
own personal health, twenty-one years of devoted service to the Consoli- 
dated University and left an indelible stamp on each of the three insti- 
tutions. In the memorial to him adopted by the Board of Trustees, the 
author, Mr. J. Spencer Love, made the following statement: "Perhaps 
someday someone will neatly catalogue his works by singling out from 
the multitude of things that he touched in some way those which deserve 
to bear his individual name and label. But let it be recorded here that his 
good works in the University are inestimable and all-pervasive and that 
his influence extends to everything that affects the welfare of his State." 

To provide for better liaison with the Board of Trustees and to bring 
additional strength to the Consolidated University staff, the position of 
secretary of the Consolidated University was reinstituted and on 1 Febru- 
ary 1 96 1, Fred H. Weaver, dean of student affairs on the campus of the 
university at Chapel Hill, was apponted to that position. Mr. Weaver was 
a graduate of the University of North Carolina. He received his A.M. 
from Harvard University and had been dean of students since 1946. At 
one time he served as American vice-consul in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, and 
from 1942-46 he served as a naval aviator with the rank of lieutenant ju- 
nior grade. 

After an extensive search by a committee under the able leadership of 
Mrs. Virginia Lathrop, Dr. Otis A. Singletary, professor of history and 
assistant to the president of the University of Texas, was nominated 
for the chancellorship at the Woman's College. On 17 April 1961 he was 
elected to that position by the Board of Trustees. Dr. Singletary was a 
native of Mississippi with an undergraduate degree from Millsaps Col- 
lege and master's and Ph.D. degrees from Louisiana State University. He 
had a brilliant record as a teacher and scholar. His experience in admin- 
istration and his attractive personality were assets that the Woman's Col- 
lege sorely needed at the time. 

At the beginning of 1961, Governor Luther Hodges's long tenure as 
chairman of the university Board of Trustees came to a close. An appro- 
priate resolution expressing the appreciation of the board to him for his 
leadership was adopted. 

In the 1950s basketball fever hit North Carolina. In 1946 North Caro- 



[40] The Consolidated University of North Carolina 

lina State College had brought into the state the popular coach Everett 
Case from Indiana. His successes inspired the university at Chapel Hill to 
employ Frank McGuire, a coach who had had great success at St. Johns 
College in New York. Other institutions followed with efforts to match 
the two units of the university. In May 1954 North Carolina State was 
placed on probation by the NCAA and prevented from engaging in the 
basketball championship play-off for one year. This penalty was for vio- 
lating regulations governing the recruitment of basketball players. Two 
years later it was placed on probation for a period of four years by the 
NCAA for irregularities connected with the recruitment of a Louisiana 
high-school graduate. 

In the meantime, the university at Chapel Hill with a team recruited 
almost exclusively from out of the state was coming on strong and had a 
perfect season climaxed on 23 March 1957 with winning the NCAA 
championship. In January 1961 it too was placed on probation for one 
year by the NCAA for violating recruitment regulations having to do 
with the entertainment of prospective students. 

After the opening of the Reynolds Coliseum on the North Carolina 
State College campus in 1949, the university at Chapel Hill, State Col- 
lege, Duke, and Wake Forest participated annually in a basketball tourna- 
ment held in the Coliseum and known popularly as the Dixie Classic. 
Case invited four outside teams for a three-day round of twelve games. 
Probationary status did not impede an institution that wanted to take part 
in the tournament. This event came to be one of the prime social and en- 
tertainment activities of the Christmas season in eastern North Carolina. 
Every year it drew hundreds of people to Raleigh during the week fol- 
lowing Christmas and was of considerable commercial value to the com- 
munity. Tampering with the Dixie Classic was almost unthinkable. 

In March 1961 a sensational and sordid drama began to unfold. Evi- 
dence of an athlete's participation in bribery was placed before Chancellor 
Aycock. It was reported that the chancellor permitted the student to 
withdraw from the university "under conditions other than honorable." 
On 3 May Chancellor Aycock, who had investigated the situation thor- 
oughly, suspended another athlete who had received Ail-American hon- 
ors that year. It was reported that he was found to have made "initial mis- 
statement and subsequent concealment" of what the chancellor termed 
"relevant facts." 

The case became worse when on 12 May Chancellor Caldwell learned 
that members of the state college basketball team had participated in the 
briberies. Two of the members were not enrolled in North Carolina State 
at that time and they were forbidden by the chancellor to reenter. An- 
other player, who was enrolled, was dismissed by Chancellor Caldwell 



Innovations and Tensions [41] 

with the proviso that he would not be permitted to reenroll. Many sen- 
sational rumors surrounded these events, among them that St. Louis 
gamblers had threatened the lives of some players if they did not shave 
points. Aside from lurid details, the awful truth was that the influence of 
gamblers had infiltrated the two teams. This situaton, connected with the 
NCAA probationary sentences and the fact that the Atlantic Coast Con- 
ference had on three occasions in the previous five years imposed a fine or 
disciplinary measures on the teams, indicated that something drastic 
needed to be done. 

President Friday made the following statement to the Board of Trustees 
on 22 May: 

Chancellor Aycock, Chancellor Caldwell, and I have conferred 
frequently in the last few days. We have been deeply conscious of 
the implications of these events for the character and standing of the 
University as well as for the unfortunate students. In our resolve to 
counter scandal with saving remedies, we have been reassured by ex- 
pressions of genuine concern and eager support from faculty mem- 
bers, students, alumni, members of the press, and others who hold 
dear the traditions of this University, and hold its integrity most dear. 

As we considered the problem before us, it became clear that we 
must choose one of two general courses of action: 

(A) We could discontinue altogether or suspend for a fixed period 
of time participation by our institutions in intercollegiate competi- 
tion in basketball. 

(B) We could move forthrightly to eliminate or correct conditions 
that have discredited the sport, in order that we might continue a 
program of intercollegiate competition in basketball. 

He stated further that he and the chancellors had agreed to follow the 
second alternative. He mentioned that one of the students involved ad- 
mitted that he was approached during the previous summer while playing 
basketball in the Catskill Mountains. They had decided that no basketball 
players would be permitted to engage in organized playing of any kind 
during the summer months under penalty of the loss of eligibility. 

They had considered abolishing grants-in-aid but rejected it as likely to 
bring on a greater evil — the control of financial assistance to athletes by 
outsiders. 

They had come to the conclusion that "our basketball teams of recent 
years have been formed of a disproportionate number of students from 
regions of the country distant from our State and our conference." The 
players, it appeared, had been recruited because of their skill as perform- 
ers and "without regard for the desirability of fielding teams which 



[42] The Consolidated University of North Carolina 

are more or less representative of the normal composition of our stu- 
dent body." 

It had been decided to restrict athletic grants-in-aid to two in basketball 
in any year at each institution to students from states outside the Atlantic 
Coast Conference area and the same principle would be applied to football. 

Finally, they had decided that for State College and the university at 
Chapel Hill, beginning with the next season, intercollegiate competition 
in basketball would be limited to "(a) the 14 games required by Confer- 
ence rules; (b) the ACC tournament; (c) the National Collegiate Basket- 
ball Championship; (d) not more than two additional games this season 
and every season thereafter with nonconference teams in other than 
Atlantic Coast Conference or NCAA Championshp Tournament play. 
Among other things, this means the immediate discontinuance of the 
Dixie Classic." President Friday pointed out the disadvantage of holiday 
tournaments and the commercialization of sports. He assured coaches 
that their contracts would be honored. 

There was a virtual fire storm over the action. A few members of the 
board questioned it. President Friday responded to them, "I will say to 
you . . . we have told you how we think the matter should be handled. 
The question then, if you start getting into specifics, will be this: Are you 
ready to take over the administration of intercollegiate athletics as a Board 
of Trustees?" He emphasized that they should all think in terms of the 
integrity and the reputations of their institutions in the minds of people 
who count in this country. Only four of the ninety-two members of the 
Board of Trustees present failed to vote affirmatively to sustain the action 
of the president and the chancellors. 

This episode received wide publicity, and it is safe to say that the action 
did much to reestablish the integrity of the institutions involved. It is true 
that there was some carping and criticism. Even the state legislature two 
years later made a representation in behalf of the Dixie Classic; however, 
President Friday, in a dignified response, explained the reason for not 
changing the decision. Incidentally, most of the big four teams were glad 
to be free of the Dixie Classic so that they could accept more attractive 
offers during the Christmas holidays. 

More than two years later the president reported that in the period fol- 
lowing May 1 96 1 the limitation on the number of regular season basket- 
ball games that could be played had been relaxed and other changes had 
been made. He announced further that the chancellors agreed with him 
that varsity basketball competition during the Christmas holiday season 
could be resumed beginning in 1965. North Carolina State and the uni- 
versity at Chapel Hill would be permitted to participate in basketball 
competition with varsity teams from two institutions that they would se- 



Innovations and Tensions [43] 

lect "in doubleheaders on successive evenings." This did not permit the 
resumption of the Dixie Classic. All other institutional restrictions on in- 
tercollegiate basketball had been lifted. This presumably meant that there 
could be recruitment on a nationwide scale and more than two grants-in- 
aid from outside the conference area. Thereafter the institutions would be 
expected to operate within the framework of the Atlantic Coast Confer- 
ence and the National Collegiate Athletic Association. 

It might be of interest to note that effective 31 August 1961, Mr. Frank 
McGuire left the university at Chapel Hill to become the coach of the 
Philadelphia Warriors, a professional team, and he was replaced by his 
assistant, a little known young man by the name of Dean Smith. 



CHAPTER 



Changing the Restrictions 
of Consolidation 



Terry Sanford was inaugurated governor in January 1961. He had 
been elected with the pledge that he would work for the improvement of 
education at all levels in North Carolina. True to his pledge, he began to 
exert the influence of his office and to have an impact first on the public 
schools and then on higher education. The political climate in North 
Carolina became more friendly to education. This was reflected in the ap- 
propriations of the General Assembly of 196 1, both to the public schools 
and to the university. 

In September 1961 the governor had become convinced that plans on a 
statewide basis would have to be made for educating the rising tide of 
students that the demographers projected for the next decade and even 
beyond. He appointed a "blue ribbon commission" of twenty-five promi- 
nent citizens including a number of leaders in the field of higher educa- 
tion. President Friday was from the beginning one of the leaders of the 
group. It was known as the Governor's Commission on Education Beyond 
the High School. The chairman of the commission was Mr. Irving E. 
Carlyle of Winston-Salem. The commission selected Professor John L. 
Sanders of the Institute of Government of the university at Chapel Hill as 
its secretary. Represented on the commission were members from public 
higher education, private higher education, the Board of Higher Educa- 
tion, trustees, members of the General Assembly, and the public at large. 
The group was organized into several committees. Among them were the 
Central Coordinating Committee with Mr. Carlyle as chairman; the 
Committee on the Development of Systems of Higher Education of 
which Major L. P. McLendon from the Board of Higher Education was 
chairman; one on community colleges and new colleges of which Presi- 
dent Leo Jenkins of East Carolina College was the chairman; and one on 
long-range growth patterns of which Mr. Thomas J. Pearsall of the Board 
of Trustees of the university was chairman. Others dealt with enrollment 
and admissions standards; financing and budgets; cooperative planning 

[44] 



Changing the Restrictions of Consolidation [45] 

between public and private institutions and the public schools; and col- 
lege surveys. The commission employed a number of scholars to assist 
them in the research necessary for carrying on its investigation. They first 
called on Dr. C. Horace Hamilton, Reynolds Professor of Rural Sociol- 
ogy at North Carolina State College, to prepare enrollment projections 
through 1975 for the committee. Using all of the census data available on 
birthrates and public-school attendance, he predicted that enrollment 
would increase from the 75,000 who were in attendance in the fall of 196 1 
to .a minimum of 124,100 in the fall of 1975, with a possible maximum 
enrollment in the latter year of 139,000. (The actual enrollment in the fall 
of 1975 in all colleges and universities in North Carolina exclusive of the 
community colleges was 168,644 an d, of these, 49,350 were enrolled in 
private colleges.) The private colleges, which in 1961 enrolled 35,145 stu- 
dents, reported that they planned sufficient expansion to accommodate 
11,250 additional students by 1970. The dimension of the problem facing 
the commission -was enormous. How could North Carolina provide post- 
secondary education for the rising tide of students? Furthermore, how 
could the opportunities be provided at a cost that both the state and the 
student could afford? 

Over the next year the commission grappled with these questions. The 
conclusions reported in August 1962 had profound effects on higher edu- 
cation in North Carolina. Most of their recommendations were enacted 
into law by the legislature of 1963. Among the actions of the legislature 
that stand as landmarks in the history of higher education in this genera- 
tion were the following: 

1. The establishment of the Community College System. 

2. The authorization for community colleges located in Charlotte, 
Wilmington and Asheville to move to four-year undergraduate col- 
lege status with expectation at that time that they would be pri- 
marily commuter-type institutions. 

3. The function of the University was defined as follows: 

The University shall provide instruction in the liberal arts, fine 
arts, and sciences, and in the learned professions, including teach- 
ing, these being defined as those professions which rest upon 
advanced knowledge in the liberal arts and sciences; and shall be 
the primary state-supported agency for research in the liberal arts 
and sciences, pure and applied. The University shall provide in- 
struction in the branches of learning relating to agriculture and 
and mechanic arts, and to other scientific and classical studies. 
The University shall be the only institution in the State System 



[46] The Consolidated University of North Carolina 

of higher education authorized to award the doctor's degree. The 
University shall extend its influence and usefulness as far as pos- 
sible to the persons of the State who are unable to avail them- 
selves of its advantages as resident students, by extension 
courses, by lectures, and by such other means as may seem to 
them most effective. 

During the deliberations of the Carlyle Commission, it was proposed 
that a fourth campus of the University of North Carolina be established 
at Charlotte College and that campuses of the university in other areas 
also be considered. President Friday suggested that this question should 
be referred to the Board of Trustees, and he was asked to get their reac- 
tion. A special meeting of the executive committee was called on 15 June 
to consider the request from the Carlyle Commission and related matters. 
President Friday was authorized by the executive committee to request 
the governor, as chairman of the board, to appoint a committee of trust- 
, ees to study the matter of expansion and other questions relating to the 
university's future. On 23 July 1962 the governor appointed a committee 
of eleven board members with Mr. Thomas Pearsall as chairman. The 
committee held its first meeting on 10 August in Chapel Hill. President 
Friday, his staff, and the chancellors were present. He pointed out the fun- 
damental policies that would need to be followed in considering the es- 
tablishment of a campus of the university in any of the suggested loca- 
tions. He also mentioned that the Faculty Advisory Committee to the 
President from all three institutions should be consulted. The members of 
the group were conscious of the fact that a task of great importance to the 
future of the university had been delegated to them. It was evident that 
significant changes in institutional arrangements for higher education had 
been made imperative by increased population, economic growth, and 
problems of survival in the unfolding environment of science and tech- 
nology. It was felt by the group that the University of North Carolina 
needed "to carry forward its basic mission in the material progress and 
cultural advance of the State." The committee agreed that the question of 
expansion to additional areas of the state "was a matter of clear priority." 
In August the committee, with officers of the university, visited the cam- 
puses of Charlotte College and Wilmington College where they held 
meetings with their boards of trustees. Later, in October, they visited 
Asheville and met with the Board of Trustees of Asheville-Biltmore Col- 
lege. These meetings were all well attended and the members were im- 
pressed by the presentations of the local boards. The Committee also 
held a meeting on 20 September with the Faculty Advisory Committee of 
the Consolidated University with which the president from time to time 



Changing the Restrictions of Consolidation [47] 

met for advice. It is not clear how the expansion was received by the fac- 
ulty committee. There was, however, a frank exchange of opinions that 
was helpful to the trustee committee. 

It had been suggested that the committee look at another multicampus 
university to see how one organized on a large scale actually functioned. 
Consequently, on 23 September 1962 a subcommittee of the special com- 
mittee accompanied by Vice President Anderson and Mr. Weaver de- 
parted for Berkeley, California. The members of the subcommittee were 
Mr. Victor S. Bryant, Mrs. John G. Burgwyn, Mr. Percy Ferebee, Mr. 
George Watts Hill, and the chairman, Mr. Pearsall. President Friday had 
already been to California, and visits between members of his staff and 
members of the University of California administrative staff had oc- 
curred. He advised the committee to make the visit. 

Mr. Pearsall in his report stated that his committee went to California 
"to learn all that we could about a state system of post-high school educa- 
tion that embraces more than seventy community junior colleges, seven- 
teen four-year state colleges and a university which comprises nine cam- 
puses with a total enrollment of over 50,000 students in the University 
alone and more than 200,000 in all public institutions of higher educa- 
tion." He described the three-tier system of California and mentioned the 
qualifications for admission to each. He also explained the organization 
of higher education in California and the aims of its "master plan for 
higher education" that had just been adopted. They visited the university 
campuses at Berkeley and Davis and spent one afternoon on the campus 
of a junior college in Sacramento. On the last day of their visit they con- 
ferred with President Clark Kerr. He gave the committee "thoughtful and 
candid advice" and told them that the major purpose of his administra- 
tion was to build on the excellence of the University of California as a 
necessary condition for progress in the state. The committee ended 
its visit with attendance at a meeting of the Coordinating Council for 
Higher Education, which was holding its initial session in Berkeley. They 
talked with the president and director of the council, with the president 
and another member of the Board of Trustees of the state college system, 
and with other public and professional members of the council. The 
council had a function in part similar to the North Carolina State Board 
of Higher Education. The members of the trustee committee thought this 
was a valuable experience. 

Mr. Pearsall ended his long presentation with a statement that his com- 
mittee would meet again in November and come to grips with one of the 
main questions before them — that of the expansion of the university. He 
called on President Friday to give a report on the work of the Carlyle 
Commission, much of which has already been mentioned. 



[48] The Consolidated University of North Carolina 

President Friday concentrated on the proposed statutory definition of 
university function quoted above. This definition, he was conscious, 
would place a great responsibility on the university. Put as a question, he 
said, it would be something like this: "In the fulfillment of its role of 
leadership in higher education in this State, what steps should the Uni- 
versity now take to execute more effectively its mission and to lead the 
way in the pattern of change that is surely to come in higher education in 
North Carolina?" He welcomed the prospect of a community college sys- 
tem and the expansion of degree-granting authority to the three commu- 
nity colleges that the committee had visited. His interpretation of the 
statutory definition was: "Our campuses function in fact as one Univer- 
sity carrying out University-type activities on a cooperative basis. If the 
University is the only institution awarding the doctor's degree in State- 
supported education, we shall have the duty of meeting this great respon- 
sibility for North Carolina. This is the most expensive educational pro- 
gram we offer and we must see that it is accomplished efficiently and 
well." He continued by cautioning against unnecessary duplications of 
professional programs and calling for the exercise of competence and 
judgment to ensure proper and wise allocation of function within the uni- 
versity. He emphasized that the definition also calls on the university to 
provide instruction in the liberal arts, fine arts, and sciences. He stated 
that "these undergraduate programs must be expanded and made acces- 
sible to men and women on our three campuses." 

The following statement of President Friday came back to plague the 
university and to cloud the great changes that were impending: "Since we 
are one University, the time has come to call it that — in all components. 
We have one University of North Carolina. It is at Chapel Hill, Raleigh 
and Greensboro. We should say so by naming it so. . . . If this Board 
believes that the proposed definition and a new name are essential, then 
statutory action must be taken." The statutory action brought on a clash 
with North Carolina State College that still reverberates in the memories 
of those from that generation. 

The visiting committee had noticed the neat arrangement of calling 
each institution in the system the "University of California" and attach- 
ing the name of the city in which it was located. They were fascinated by 
it, came back and sold it to their associates, and found out later to the 
dismay of everyone that institutional loyalties, especially in small and sen- 
timental things, cannot be tampered with lightly. 

The Board of Trustees of the university held a special session in the hall 
of the House of Representatives in Raleigh on 25 January 1963 to consider 
the final report of the special committee which had been appointed to 
study proposals for additional campuses of the university and other re- 



Changing the Restrictions of Consolidation [49] 

lated questions. It developed that "the other related questions" came to be 
as important as the proposal for additional campuses. The recommenda- 
tions of this committee as they came to be implemented in the years 
ahead did much to alter the restrictions of the original consolidation of 
the university, which had been adopted in a time of great economic crisis 
during the 1930s. This report came in a period of economic expansion 
and optimism. Mr. Pearsall, chairman of the committee, made the report 
that together with the discussion covers twenty-one pages in the minutes 
of the Board of Trustees. He discussed some of the great social and tech- 
nological changes that had occurred since World War II, summarized the 
problems that had faced the Governor's Commission on Education Be- 
yond High School, explained the work of the special committee of the 
Board of Trustees, and then launched into a discussion of the importance 
of the university. After giving some arguments favoring change in uni- 
versity programs, he finally came to the recommendations of the com- 
mittee. The first was that the proposed definition of university purpose 
formulated by the Governor's Commission on Education Beyond the 
High School be accepted as a point of reference for other recommenda- 
tions that were intended to enlarge and improve the services of the uni- 
versity. The enactment of that definition into law by the General Assem- 
bly, he recommended, should be regarded "as constituting a condition 
precedent to the actual implementation of other changes recommended by 
the committee." 

The second recommendation was that all campuses of the university be 
coeducational. This would permit greater utilization of all the facilities 
of the university and make it more consistent with contemporary trends. 
The intent was to admit both men and women at all levels. 

The third recommendation was for broader undergraduate educa- 
tion. This would make it necessary that the university provide on each of 
its campuses the breadth of educational experience consistent with the 
standards of a university. For this reason, it was recommended that a de- 
gree program in the liberal arts be authorized at the Raleigh campus; cur- 
ricula already existed at Chapel Hill and Greensboro in the liberal arts. 

The fourth recommendation related to a plan for future expansion of 
the university. It was pointed out that North Carolina "is a vigorous 
growing State" and that centers of population were being developed 
in areas away from the present university campuses. The intent of the 
Carlyle Commission Report, it was argued, was to bring about in the 
state a well-coordinated system of higher education. This would require 
clearly differentiated functions between the different kinds of institutions 
of higher education and a "sharply defined definition of the responsibili- 
ties of the University." 



[50] The Consolidated University of North Carolina 

The committee had given careful attention to the requests of trustees of 
Charlotte College, Wilmington College, and Asheville-Biltmore College 
that these institutions become campuses of the university. After careful 
study the committee recommended "that the statutes be amended to au- 
thorize the Board of Trustees of the University to establish additional 
units of the University" subject to applicable statutory procedures and 
the following conditions: 

1. That the need of the development of a new unit be established by a 
thorough study of the area in which the new campus is proposed. 
Such a study was to be made under the direction of the Board of 
Trustees. 

2. That additional funds be made available for the establishment of the 
new campus to ensure that the quality of the instructional and re- 
search programs at the existing units of the University be main- 
tained at the highest possible level. 

3. That standards and criteria prescribed by the Board of Trustees 
shall prevail at the new campus in the same manner that they apply 
at the existing units of the University. 

4. That as soon as the Legislature authorized expansion the Univer- 
sity should make a comprehensive study of the need for establish- 
ing new units of the University and report its recommendations to 
the Board. 

The fifth recommendation of the committee was that there be one 
name for the university. A long and involved history of the various name 
changes that had occurred at Greensboro and Raleigh was presented. It 
was argued that "the fact that each unit of the University has had a sepa- 
rate and distinctive name has hindered the full development of a spirit of 
unity and common purpose on the three campuses." It was pointed out 
that it was no longer appropriate to refer to the institution at Raleigh as a 
college and, in view of plans for the institution at Greensboro, it would 
not be appropriate to call it a college. The committee had devoted much 
time and study to the problem of nomenclature. They had received the 
criticism and advice of students, faculty, alumni, trustees, and many 
others. 

Mr. Pearsall departed from the prepared report to go into many of the 
problems the members had had in arriving at recommendations for names. 
This was especially true of State College. They had seen a list of thirteen 
suggested names. The committee had delayed its report for sixty days de- 
liberating on the matter. Finally, Chancellor Caldwell had been requested 



Changing the Restrictions of Consolidation [51] 

to bring the various parties together and formulate a suggested name. 
The Board of Directors of the Alumni Association of North Carolina 
State had voted unanimously in support of a resolution suggesting three 
names "any one of which they would willingly accept." The committee 
was recommending one of the three names. He argued that it retained the 
traditional name North Carolina State, it identified the institution as a 
part of the university, and it deleted the word college. Thus an awkward 
compromise was arrived at, which soon after it was adopted evoked both 
ridicule and anger. 

The committee suggested the following: "We recommended that the 
title now used to designate the single University with its three campuses, 
"The University of North Carolina," be retained; that the institution 
at Chapel Hill be given the name, "The University of North Carolina at 
Chapel Hill"; that the institution at Raleigh be known as "North Carolina 
State, The University of North Carolina at Raleigh"; and that the unit at 
Greensboro be given the title, "The University of North Carolina at 
Greensboro." 

Mr. Pearsall made a further statement concerning the procedure the 
committee had followed, its agonizing search for a new name for State 
College, and the necessity of lifting both the standard of education and 
the standard of living in North Carolina. He stated that much of the re- 
port represented recommendations made by President Friday and that it 
would be appropriate to hear from the president. 

President Friday in a long and eloquent statement of the evolution 
through which the university had progressed since consolidation had 
been enacted on 2 March 193 1, emphasized that "we face a new need and 
a new opportunity in a world that is largely transformed even in the short 
generation since 193 1." He closed with this statement: "As I see it, we 
either go forward on the buoyant impulse of a lofty program of larger 
service, or we say 'nay' and rue the cost of forfeited opportunity." 

Mr. Victor Bryant moved that the plan be approved and made a lengthy 
statement supporting his motion. The motion was seconded by Mrs. 
Burgwyn and Mr. Walter Smith, each of whom made a statement sup- 
porting the motion. Several others also made statements and the motion 
was eventually adopted unanimously by a rising vote; thus came to a 
close one of the most historic meetings of the Board of Trustees. 

The Pearsall Committee continued to monitor the course of recom- 
mendations needing the approval of the General Assembly through the 
session of 1963. The assembly adopted the recommendation concerning 
name changes, and controversy over that issue extended through the 1965 
session of the General Assembly when, after much acrimony, the name 
North Carolina State University at Raleigh was enacted into law. 



[52] The Consolidated University of North Carolina 

The Legislature also enacted the recommendation of the committee on 
the establishment of additional campuses of the university; however, it 
added two checks on the Board of Trustees by providing that the estab- 
lishment of any additional campuses would be "subject to the approval of 
the North Carolina Board of Higher Education and the approval and pro- 
vision of adequate financial support for the proposed additional campus 
or campuses by the General Assembly." The definition of functions of the 
university was also adopted by the legislature with the addition of a sen- 
tence that made it responsible for extending the influence and usefulness 
of the university to persons who were unable to attend as resident students. 

The administration of the university, with the approval of the Board of 
Trustees proceeded to adopt the other recommendations of the commit- 
tee. This meant that in time the university functions would be exercised 
by all three of the campuses, with Chapel Hill primarily responsible for 
the arts and sciences through the doctoral level and professional programs 
in law, medicine, dentistry, and other health sciences, as well as programs 
in professional fields such as education, business, journalism, library sci- 
ence, and social work. North Carolina State University was responsible 
in the beginning for education through the doctoral level in the various 
technological fields, and it also added arts and sciences at the undergradu- 
ate level. The University of North Carolina at Greensboro began planning 
a few master's programs in the arts and sciences and doctoral programs in 
home economics and education. The effects on the three institutions were 
felt almost immediately, and they soon found their status and function 
extended far beyond their prospects in the 1930s. 

In the twenty-five years following the close of World War II, the Con- 
solidated University gradually developed a philosophy and purpose that 
has with further evolution endured to the present time. The general divi- 
sion of the university's academic and professional work among the three 
original campuses had continued without substantial change through the 
first fifteen years of consolidation. As the three campuses grew in size 
after 1950, the scope of their programs increased and the original alloca- 
tion of functions had to be revised. The development of the health sci- 
ences at Chapel Hill added new dimensions to graduate and professional 
studies on that campus. Advanced work in the natural sciences was a nec- 
essary prerequisite for programs in agriculture and engineering at the 
Raleigh campus. There was a growing realization that graduate programs 
more closely related to the major responsibilities at Greensboro were 
needed if that campus was to achieve its proper place as an institution of 
university rank. After 1945, separate graduate schools emerged on each 
of the three campuses. The determination of graduate policies, however, 
continued as a function of the All-University Graduate Executive Coun- 



Changing the Restrictions of Consolidation [53] 

cil with representation from each of the three campuses and under the 
leadership of the vice president for academic affairs. 

The first major change in philosophy and purpose came in 1962. The 
previous year President Friday had asked the Graduate Executive Council 
to review the situation and make recommendations that could serve as 
guidelines for the future development of graduate programs. The council 
with unanimous approval issued a report in January 1962 advocating that 
the university should adapt to the changing circumstances and needs of 
the time. The report pointed out that this would involve changes in re- 
sponsibilities allocated to the three campuses. The council recommended 
specifically (1) that the policy of concentrating the development of gradu- 
ate professional programs at different units of the university should be 
continued; (2) that graduate programs in the humanities and liberal arts 
had for many years reflected the strength and resources of the university 
at Chapel Hill but that full utilization of the potentialities of the Greens- 
boro campus in these areas should be developed and that the responsibili- 
ties of the Raleigh campus in the field of technological education made it 
necessary to develop liberal arts and humanities degrees on that campus; 
and (3) that the major areas of duplication between Raleigh and Chapel 
Hill were in the sciences; consequently, doctoral studies in the sciences 
should reflect the needs of the applied sciences at Raleigh and the presence 
of strong departments in the physical and biological sciences and in 
mathematics at Chapel Hill. 

The work of the council was endorsed by the president and the Board 
of Trustees; however, within a year, another group was busy studying the 
need for a change in the allocation of academic responsibilities. On 
25 January 1963 the special committee of the Board of Trustees, whose 
work has already been discussed, reported to the Board of Trustees cer- 
tain recommendations, three of which required only the approval of the 
board. These were (1) that the Greensboro campus be made coeduca- 
tional; (2) that undergraduate work leading to the degree of Bachelor of 
Arts be authorized at Raleigh; and (3) that women be admitted in the 
freshman year at both Raleigh and Chapel Hill. 

The legislature of 1963, following the recommendation of the Gover- 
nor's Commission on Education Beyond the High School, enacted a new 
definition of functions of the university. It made the university the only 
state-supported institution authorized to offer graduate and professional 
curricula leading to doctoral degrees. By specifically assigning and au- 
thorizing the responsibility for undergraduate, graduate, and professional 
programs and for research to the university as a whole and not to any of 
the three campuses, the law made explicit the consolidation that had been 
brought about by the legislature of 1931. Decisions about the location of 



[54] The Consolidated University of North Carolina 

these programs on the several campuses were also made the clear pre- 
rogative of the Board of Trustees. 

The General Assembly of 1963 also enacted a statute that made possible 
the subsequent expansion of the university to Charlotte, Asheville, and 
Wilmington. The addition of other campuses to the university and the 
heavy pressures for increased undergraduate enrollment, the growing de- 
mand for public service and the enormous increase in the number and size 
of the university's commitment to research investigations, and the sub- 
stantial growth of graduate programs made necessary a restudy of the 
existing procedures for dividing these responsibilities among the four 
campuses of the university (Charlotte had been added in 1964). For these 
reasons President Friday appointed a committee of senior faculty mem- 
bers to study the academic problems confronting the university and to 
prepare guidelines for the orderly development of undergraduate and 
graduate programs and to recommend new activities which might be de- 
sirable for the university to undertake. 

The committee examined the economic and social trends evident in the 
state and speculated on their probable impact on the university during the 
next decade. Prominent among these were projections which indicated 
that undergraduate enrollment would experience an unprecedented in- 
crease and that graduate enrollment might increase as much as 100 per- 
cent. Industrial expansion was expected to create a steadily escalating de- 
mand for professionally and technically trained individuals. These factors 
were all used in justifying the subsequent expansion of the university. 
The committee concluded that the two major problems facing the univer- 
sity in the immediate future were the rapidly growing number of qualified 
students and the ever-increasing expansion of knowledge, both of which 
they warned would impose severe strains upon the academic resources 
available on all campuses of the university. Because the Higher Education 
Act of 1963 had made the university responsible for all graduate study 
beyond the master's level, for the training of professional men and women, 
and for major research programs, the need for careful planning was em- 
phasized by the committee. It also noted the limitation on financial re- 
sources that the state might be able to provide for the university. 

The report of this committee was the last important pronouncement on 
university philosophy and purpose before 1972. President Friday pre- 
sented it to the Board of Trustees on 23 May 1966, as certain basic guide- 
lines for the future development of the university. The board approved 
the report unanimously. It was intended to guide planning for the future 
of the university. Since so much of its content passed on into the restruc- 
tured university after the troubled years in higher education between 1966 
and 1972, President Friday's statement and the recommendations of the 
committee are included here in full: 



Changing the Restrictions of Consolidation [55] 

It is important to remind ourselves again of some of the major re- 
sponsibilities of a university as we think about our future plans. 
A major university will have a school or college of arts and sciences, 
a graduate school, and schools or colleges in many areas of profes- 
sional training. This organization of schools or colleges within a uni- 
versity is an expression of the wide and rich variety of subjects 
offered there for study. 

A basic responsibility of such a university is good teaching. The 
faculty should meet this responsibility with distinction and their 
efforts should provide students, both graduate and undergraduate, 
with enriched opportunities for learning. 

A second responsibility of a university is that of offering programs 
of graduate study and research that provide opportunities for origi- 
nal and creative work. The modern university is a center where the 
limits of knowledge are enlarged, where new discoveries are made, 
and where man's understanding of himself and his world is steadily 
expanding. It is in universities that men and women learn the meth- 
ods through which new knowledge can be discovered. They are the 
principal centers in which scholars and scientists are trained. Some 
research, of course, is carried on in four-year colleges; however, 
training rather than research is considered the major responsibility of 
faculty members of such institutions. 

A third responsibility of a major university is that of providing 
programs of professional education. Universities prepare our profes- 
sional men and women, our medical doctors; lawyers; engineers; 
public school, college, and university teachers; and others for service. 

A fourth area of increasing responsibility for universities today is 
in adult education. The swift pace of technological progress, the 
rapid advance of medical knowledge, and the growing desire of our 
adult population for greater knowledge about literature, the fine arts, 
the sciences, and the humanities send people back to school. Conse- 
quently, universities must reach out beyond the campus to provide 
learning experiences. 

Since 1963, legislation of the General Assembly and Trustee ac- 
tions have enlarged the responsibilities of the University and made 
desirable a thorough restudy of our academic policies on allocation 
of functions. Accordingly, after consultation with the Chancellors, I 
asked that three senior faculty members from each campus meet 
with the Vice President for Academic Affairs to suggest guidelines 
for the future development of our four campuses. This Committee 
met frequently through the previous academic year. It studied the re- 
sponsibilities of university status for each campus, the best use of li- 
brary resources, the most effective use of staff and facilities on the 



[56] The Consolidated University of North Carolina 

several campuses and how best to determine where specific pro- 
grams should be located. The Committee agreed that it would be 
unwise to set up any system of regulations that would be rigid and 
unresponsive to the changing needs of future years. They have rec- 
ommended procedures and policies which have been discussed in de- 
tail with the Chancellors and with my associates. We have reached 
agreement on the following principles which we recommend to you 
as our basic guidelines for the future: 

1. That subject to existing University procedures for the approval 
of budgets and academic programs, all campuses may provide gradu- 
ate and undergraduate instruction and research opportunities in the 
basic natural sciences, the social sciences, the humanities, the fine 
arts, and teacher education. 

2. That insofar as practicable in the development of advanced 
graduate work, each campus seek to emphasize different areas of the 
disciplines, thus enlarging and enriching the educational opportuni- 
ties of the University. 

3. That highly specialized work for which there is a limited de- 
mand be developed only at specific campuses. 

4. That on all campuses new faculty members appointed to the 
rank of assistant professor and above be chosen with their compe- 
tence in teaching and scholarship and their qualifications for ad- 
vanced instruction in mind. 

5. That with reference to advanced graduate work (doctoral train- 
ing) and particularly before duplication occurs in professional train- 
ing (law, medicine, engineering, etc.) great care be taken to weigh 
the capacity of society to absorb the graduates, to evaluate the need 
for additional highly trained personnel relative to the need for per- 
sons with other qualifications, to determine the prospects of ade- 
quate financing, and to avoid impoverishment of programs on other 
campuses. 

I emphasize these principles because they will govern the direction 
in which we plan to move on all four campuses. They represent a 
major departure from the policies that have guided us in the past, but 
they are necessary if we are to progress in a sound and responsible 
manner. 

With the approval of this new policy, the Board of Trustees lifted in full 
the restrictions of the consolidation of the 1930s and set the university's 
course toward its future role as a major multicampus university. 



CHAPTER 



The Speaker-Ban Law 



I n addition to measures of such great benefit to the state and to higher 
education as those discussed in Chapter 3, the General Assembly of 1963 
enacted on the last day of the session a law of great potential damage to 
the university. On 26 June 1963 "an act to regulate visiting speakers at 
state-supported colleges and universities" was ratified. On the previous 
day it had been jntroduced into the House by Representative Phil Godwin 
of Gates County without the knowledge of any educational leaders and 
without many members of the legislature conscious of its import. It was 
rushed through and sent on to the Senate where it was approved before 
President Friday, who was racing toward Raleigh, could arrive. Frantic 
attempts were made to recall the act from the Enrolling Committee for 
the purpose of either changing it or killing it, but the legislative process 
was hurrying toward adjournment. The bill was signed by the Speaker 
of the House and the lieutenant governor and became the law of the land. 
The provisions of the bill are as follows: 

The General Assembly of North Carolina do enact: 

Section 1 . No college or university, which receives any state funds 
in support thereof, shall permit any person to use the facilities of 
such college or university for speaking purposes, who: 

(A) is a known member of the Communist Party; 

(B) is known to advocate the overthrow of the constitution of the 
United States or the State of North Carolina; 

(C) has pleaded the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution of the 
United States in refusing to answer any question, with respect to 
communist or subversive connections, before any duly constituted 
legislative committee, any judicial tribunal, or any executive or ad- 
ministrative board of the United States or any state. 

Section 2. This Act shall be enforced by the Board of Trustees, or 
other governing authority, of such college or university, or by such 
administrative personnel as may be appointed therefor by the Board 
of Trustees or other governing authority of such college or university. 

[57] 



[58] The Consolidated University of North Carolina 

The question naturally arises, "What motivated the legislators who 
managed to impose this drastic law on the public colleges and the Univer- 
sity of North Carolina?" The answer probably lies in the long series of 
events following World War II, which produced Senator McCarthy, the 
Un-American Activities Committee, and the cold war and suspicion that 
dominated this period. It was reinforced by the civil rights revolution and 
the legacy of the Korean War. In North Carolina there were such events as 
the sit-in activities of students from North Carolina Agricultural and 
Technical State College (A&T) and the activity of others who followed 
their lead. In Chapel Hill there were student organizations that aroused 
the ire of a few ultraconservative reporters, none of which represented the 
major newspapers of the state. There had also been an occasional tele- 
vision commentator who criticized the university for alleged radical ac- 
tivities. During this period the university at Chapel Hill was charged 
with permitting so-called communist speakers on a number of occasions 
when the facts would not support the allegations. In short, the university 
had been made to seem a hotbed of radicalism. In June 1963 there was a 
demonstration near the Sir Walter Hotel, which was reported to involve 
some university students led by the late Allard Lowenstein who was then 
an instructor at North Carolina State. At about this same time, a copy of a 
proposed law regulating visiting speakers on the campuses of public col- 
leges and universities in Ohio came to the attention of a member of the 
state legislature. It was substantially the same document that was rail- 
roaded through the North Carolina legislature and became law on 26 June 
1963. The title of the leading editorial in the Raleigh Times on 4 July was 
"We cannot Honestly Celebrate our Day of Independence Today." 

The executive committee of the Board of Trustees first discussed this 
act on 8 July. It is clear from the reaction of members of the administra- 
tion and the board that it left them in a state of shock. President Friday 
observed that "a university without intellectual freedom is no univer- 
sity." There was a discussion of the act, and Chancellor Aycock reported 
on an examination made by the law school on how to implement this leg- 
islation. President Friday stated that no other state had such a statute. 
There was one suggestion that the policy should be enforced by student 
representatives of student organizations authorized to invite visiting 
speakers and by any member of the faculty or administrative official who 
invited a visiting speaker to the campus. 

President Friday advised the executive committee that the full Board of 
Trustees should adopt a general policy with regard to this legislation. 

A resolution drafted by Chancellor Aycock was submitted, but Mrs. 
Lathrop then moved "that the Board of Trustees take appropriate steps 
to endeavor to eliminate this restriction upon academic freedom." Mr. 
Umstead seconded the motion, and it was adopted unanimously. 



The Speaker-Ban Law [59] 

The bill was not considered by the full Board of Trustees until the 
28 October 1963. President Friday explained the difficulties that had been 
experienced by the administration in deciding how to secure compliance 
with the law. He called on Chancellor Aycock, a legal scholar, to give an 
analysis of the act, which by this time was called the Speaker-Ban Law. 
He went through it, part by part, and illustrated how vague it really was. 
He asked the question, "What is meant by a known member of the Com- 
munist Party? Known by what means?" He pointed out that section B on 
advocating the overthrow of the Constitution of the United States or the 
State of North Carolina did not specify whether it meant by force or vio- 
lence. He asked the question, "Does it include overthrow by peaceful 
means with respect to persons who had pleaded the Fifth Amendment?" 
He illustrated different interpretations that could be put on this. He men- 
tioned that the title of the act referred only to regulating visiting speakers 
but the text referred to any person using the facilities of the college or 
university for speaking purposes. Students, he suggested, did not enroll 
for speaking purposes and faculty were not employed for speaking pur- 
poses in the same sense that the term applied to visiting speakers. 

Lengthy resolutions passed by faculty representative bodies on the 
three campuses were presented. The chancellors also made vigorous 
statements in criticism of the Speaker-Ban Law. Chancellor Caldwell 
pointed out a number of cases where the act had embarrassed the univer- 
sity in dealing with scholars who were invited to lecture on the campus of 
the State College or national organizations that were contemplating hold- 
ing meetings on that campus. 

President Friday stated that "we have presented these examples because 
we believe they illustrate the seriousness of the problem that this law has 
created for the University." He insisted that "Already, the exclusion, by 
law, of vital sources of knowledge from our University has begun." He 
mentioned the way it damaged the standing of the university among 
world scholars and among other institutions; however, he pointed to the 
fact that: "Harmful as the law is to the actual functioning of the Univer- 
sity, and to our standing among institutions of higher learning, there is 
yet another difficulty more vague and possibly even more damaging in its 
ultimate effect. The adoption of a law that purports to remedy a supposed 
communist influence upon our campuses has implanted in the minds of 
some citizens of our State the disturbing notion that such an influence ac- 
tually exists and is deliberately defended." 

Mr. Frank Taylor stated that the board had a very grave responsibility. 
He did not believe that the General Assembly would intentionally do any- 
thing to hurt the university; however, he believed that some of our best 
friends had made a mistake and that something should be done to correct 
the mistake. He referred to a series of meetings that had been held through- 



[6o] The Consolidated University of North Carolina 

out the state with members of the board, and he stated that the executive 
committee of the board felt responsible to present a resolution which he 
believed expressed the consensus of those group meetings. Omitting the 
six "whereas clauses," the resolution called on the Board of Trustees of 
the Consolidated University of North Carolina to "deplore this legisla- 
tion as a departure from the tradition of our State," and the resolution 
asked that "the Chairman be directed to appoint a special committee of 
fifteen members of the Board of Trustees to determine and implement 
measures to remove this legislative impairment of intellectual freedom and 
preemption of the authority and prerogatives of the Board of Trustees." 

The proposal brought opposition from one member of the board. He 
suggested that the board wait until the next session of the General As- 
sembly and remove from the law those things that might be harmful to 
the university. In rebuttal, Mr. Taylor argued that the issue needed to be 
studied. He was backed by at least eight members of the board in lengthy 
statements and the resolution for a committee of fifteen was passed 
unanimously. 

It was a year before the Board of Trustees returned to the subject of the 
Speaker-Ban Law after authorizing the fifteen-member committee. It re- 
mained a problem for the administration of the university; it certainly 
was not forgotten by the press and by the students. During this period 
much of the time of the board and of the administration was consumed in 
futile arguments, petitions, and committee recommendations over the 
name-change issue. In addition, 1964 was the year of a spirited guber- 
natorial campaign which resulted in the election of Judge Dan K. Moore, 
a more conservative and less activist leader than Governor Terry Sanford. 
Perhaps Governor Sanford's inaction on the speaker-ban issue was de- 
signed to keep it out of the political arena as long as he was governor. 

Eventually, on 21 October 1964, Governor Sanford appointed the spe- 
cial committee with Mr. William Medford as chairman. It was on 27 April 
1965 that the Medford committee report was considered at a special 
meeting of the executive committee. The committee report stated that 
"despite a clear preference for outright repeal, the Committee concluded 
that amendment of the Act was a more practical objective to pursue," and 
a suggested amendment, which never got very far in the legislature, ac- 
companied the report that was adopted by the executive committee. The 
committee also directed the chairman (Governor Moore) to appoint a 
subcommittee of the executive committee to discuss the problem with 
Governor Moore and, if necessary, to represent the committee before the 
General Assembly. The chairman appointed Messrs. George Watts Hill, 
Wade Barber, and Frank Taylor as members of the subcommittee. The ac- 
tion of the executive committee was reported to the full Board of Trustees 



The Speaker-Ban Law [61] 

on 24 May. There were a number of speeches in favor of the report, and 
Mr. Thomas White, who was also a member of the state Senate, spoke in 
opposition to the report; however, it was approved by a large majority of 
the members. In the meantime, representations had been made to the leg- 
islature by a representative of the Southern Association of Schools and 
Colleges that under the regulations of that Assocation the accreditation of 
all state-supported colleges and universities in North Carolina might be 
injeopardy. 

The legislature took no action either to repeal or to amend the Speaker- 
Ban Law but it did, upon the advice of Governor Moore, authorize a nine- 
member commission instructed to inquire into the Law, "with respect 
particularly to the enforcement of the statutes; the relationship, if any, be- 
tween these statutes and the accreditation of State-supported institutions 
by accreditation organizations and associations; the effect on the relation- 
ship of these institutions with other institutions of higher learning; and 
the impact of the statutes as to the status, administration, reputation, 
functioning and future development of the State-supported institutions." 

The nine-member commission, five of whom were appointed by the 
governor, two by the Speaker of the House, and two by the Lieutenant 
Governor with Representative David M. Britt of Fairmont as chairman, 
was announced by the governor on 24 June. The commission held a series 
of hearings in September and received testimony representing a wide 
range of views, including those of President Friday and Mr. Frank Taylor 
who opposed the Law vigorously. 

The executive committee of the Board of Trustees sent a resolution to 
the commission reaffirming the action of the Board of Trustees in its 
adoption of the special report of the Medford committee. On 25 October 
President Friday reported to the regular meeting of the Board of Trustees 
that he had nothing to report concerning the deliberations of the Britt 
Commission on the Speaker-Ban Law and on the statement in the press 
reporting the formal notice that the university had received to appear be- 
fore the executive council of the Southern Association of Colleges and 
Schools at its forthcoming meeting in Richmond on 28 November. It was 
the intention of the university to be represented at the hearing of the asso- 
ciation. He also reported that there had been a considerable improvement 
in the understanding of the university's position in this matter recently. 

The Britt Commission recommended that, subject to the adoption by 
each board of trustees of a state-supported college or university of a 
speaker-policy statement, the 1963 policy should be amended to vest in 
the trustees of the institutions the responsibility of adopting and publish- 
ing rules relating to visiting speakers covered by the act. It also recom- 
mended that as soon as all of the boards of trustees had adopted the state- 



[62] The Consolidated University of North Carolina 

ment, the governor should call a special session of the legislature to pass 
the amendment leaving the adoption of regulations to the several boards 
of trustees. The adoption of the speaker-policy statement drafted by the 
Britt Commission was a condition of calling a special session of the legis- 
lature and of amending the law. The policy statement was a surprise to the 
Board of Trustees; however, in a special session of the board on 12 No- 
vember 1965, it adopted, upon recommendation of Governor Moore, the 
policy statement. The boards of the other state-supported institutions 
had already adopted the Statement, which was as follows: 

Speaker Policy 

The Trustees recognize that this Institution, and every part thereof, is 
owned by the people of North Carolina; that it is operated by duly 
selected representatives and personnel for the benefit of the people of 
our state. 

The Trustees of this Institution are unalterably opposed to Com- 
munism and any other ideology or form of government which has as 
its goal the destruction of our basic democratic institutions. 

We recognize that the total program of a college or university is 
committed to an orderly process of inquiry and discussion, ethical 
and moral excellence, objective instruction, and respect for law. An 
essential part of the education of each student at this Institution is the 
opportunity to hear diverse viewpoints expressed by speakers prop- 
erly invited to the campus. It is highly desirable that students have 
the opportunity to question, review and discuss the opinions of 
speakers representing a wide range of viewpoints. 

It is vital to our success in supporting our free society against all 
forms of totalitarianism that institutions remain free to examine 
these ideologies to any extent that will serve the educational purpose 
of our institutions and not to the purposes of the enemies of our free 
society. 

We feel that the appearance as a visiting speaker on our campus of 
one who was prohibited under Chapter 1207 of the 1963 Session 
Laws (The Speaker Ban Law) or who advocates any ideology or 
form of government which is wholly alien to our basic democratic 
institutions should be infrequent and then only when it would clearly 
serve the advantage of education; and on such rare occasions reason- 
able and proper care should be exercised by the institution. The 
campuses shall not be exploited as convenient outlets of discord and 
strife. 

We therefore provide that we the Trustees together with the ad- 
ministration of the Institution shall be held responsible and account- 



The Speaker-Ban Law [63] 

able for visiting speakers on our campuses. And to that end the ad- 
ministration will adopt rules and precautionary measures consistent 
with the policy herein set forth regarding the invitations to and ap- 
pearance of visiting speakers. These rules and precautionary mea- 
sures shall be subject to the approval of the Trustees. 

The governor, following adoption of the policy statement by the Board 
of Trustees, called a special session of the legislature to meet on 1 5 Novem- 
ber 1965. The special session adjourned sine die on Wednesday, 17 No- 
vember, after passing an amendment to the Speaker-Ban Law that deleted 
the following from section 1: "No college or university, which receives 
any state funds in support thereof, shall permit any person to use the fa- 
cilities of such college or university for speaking purposes, who:" and 
substituted the following: "Use of facilities for speaking purposes. The 
Board of Trustees of each college or university which receives any State 
funds in support thereof, shall adopt and publish regulations governing 
the use of facilities of such college or university for speaking purposes by 
any person who:" Section 2 was amended by deleting "this act" from the 
first line and inserting "any such regulation." 

After receiving Governor Moore's address, the legislature had in three 
days of deliberation changed the Speaker-Ban Law in such a way as to 
make boards of trustees responsible for formulating and publishing regu- 
lations governing the use of facilities for speaking purposes according to 
the three designated categories in the original Speaker-Ban Law, and it 
also made boards of trustees responsible for enforcing their regulations. 
This was obviously an attempt to retain the Speaker-Ban Law by putting 
the responsibility on the boards of trustees. 

On 14 January 1966 President Friday read to the executive committee 
of the Board of Trustees a set of simple speaker regulations which were 
approved. On 28 January, at a special meeting of the executive committee, 
President Friday advised the group that a student organization on the 
campus of the university at Chapel Hill, which was a recognized student 
organization known as Students for a Democratic Society, had issued in- 
vitations to two persons, which he wanted to discuss with the executive 
committee. He called on Chancellor Sharpe to give details about the in- 
vitations. Chancellor Sharpe stated that, in accordance with existing 
regulations concerning all speakers on the campus, he felt that he could 
not deny permits for the two invitees, Messrs. Frank Wilkinson and 
Herbert Aptheker, to speak. Mr. Aptheker was a well-known Marxist 
and would presumably have been ineligible to speak under the original 
Speaker-Ban Law. Mr. Wilkinson was chairman of a committee for the 
abolition of the Un-American Activities Committee and had at one time 
taken the Fifth Amendment. The matter was discussed at great length. 



[64] The Consolidated University of North Carolina 

Governor Moore stated his opposition to the appearance of these speakers 
on the university campus. He left the meeting, however, before the dis- 
cussion of the matter. The committee recessed to give opportunity for 
further study and consideration to be reconvened by the governor. 

This threat to deny these two persons an opportunity to speak evoked 
great controversy and excitement. The executive committee was recon- 
vened on 7 February, and the matter of invited communist speakers was 
introduced. Three groups with prepared statements had requested to ap- 
pear: the Faculty Advisory Committee at Chapel Hill, a student group 
headed by the president of the student body at Chapel Hill, and a group 
of young faculty members at the same institution. In addition, there were 
resolutions from the Faculty Senate of the North Carolina State Univer- 
sity at Raleigh, and a resolution passed by the Academic Policies Com- 
mittee of the University of North Carolina at Greensboro, a resolution 
passed by the General Faculty of the University at Charlotte, and a state- 
ment from the chapter of Students for a Democratic Society at the Uni- 
versity at Chapel Hill. All of these made positive representations on be- 
half of permitting Mr. Wilkinson and Mr. Aptheker to speak. 

The matter was discussed at great length, and Governor Moore made it 
quite clear that he would not attempt to dictate to the executive commit- 
tee; however, he did reserve the right as chairman to express his views. 

President Friday reviewed the whole situation and suggested for the ap- 
proval of the committee a set of rules and regulations governing invita- 
tions of visiting speakers who came under the speaker-ban bill. This was 
a composite of: (1) the Visiting Speaker Policy, which the Board of Trust- 
ees had been required to adopt as a condition to amending the original 
speaker-ban bill; (2) procedures that had been adopted by the executive 
committee on 14 January. 

The suggestion of President Friday was adopted unanimously. Mr. 
Bryant suggested that an additional paragraph be added to the regulations 
adopted at the 14 January meeting of the executive committee. After 
some discussion it was moved that the chair appoint a committee of three 
to discuss this proposal with President Friday and report to the full meet- 
ing of the board on 28 February. The motion carried, and Governor 
Moore appointed Messrs. Bryant, Barber and Maynard. 

President Friday proposed that the executive committee consider a 
panel discussion involving more speakers than Mr. Aptheker, and that all 
trustees be invited to attend. After long debate, the following resolutions 
were adopted: 

1. The Executive Committee of the Board of Trustees of The Univer- 
sity of North Carolina instructs the President and Chancellor to 
deny the use of University facilities for speaking purposes for the 



The Speaker-Ban Law [65] 

scheduled appearance of Herbert Aptheker and Frank Wilkinson. 
2. The Executive Committee of the Board of Trustees of The Univer- 
sity of North Carolina hereby suspends all invitations to speakers 
who are under the terms of G.S. 1 16-199 until formal action is 
taken by the Board of Trustees establishing rules and regulations 
governing visiting speakers, as required by law. 

The motion was adopted by a vote of eight to three with Mr. Bryant, 
Mrs. Lathrop, and Mrs. Burgwyn voting against the motion. 

On 28 February 1966 President Friday reviewed in a regular meeting of 
the Board of Trustees the background of a set of regulations entitled 
"Laws, Policies and Regulations Governing Invitations to and Appear- 
ances of Visiting Speakers Affected by General Statutes 1 16-199 an d 
— 200" and procedures governing the actual appearance of speakers. 

During the course of the deliberations, Mr. Paul Dickson III, who was 
president of the student body at Chapel Hill and made an eloquent state- 
ment against the proposed rules and regulations, pointed out that "these 
proposed procedures raised unnecessary constitutional risks for the Uni- 
versity — risks that it does not have to take. These risks are raised by the 
very fact that they are a form of prior censorship." He quoted a statement 
by Senator Sam J. Ervin, Jr., to the effect that: "Censorship by require- 
ment of official approval or license in advance for speaking or publishing 
has been condemned frequently by the Courts . . . the due process clauses 
of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments also provide basic protections 
whereby the State and the Federal Government are prevented from adopt- 
ing arbitrary and unconstitutional legislation or other measures which 
would violate individual rights." He suggested a simple alternative set of 
regulations and stated that they had been accepted by the Committee for 
Free Inquiry at a meeting in Chapel Hill on 11 February 1966. 

President Friday called on the chancellors, each of whom made a state- 
ment in support of the laws, policies, and regulations — some of them 
wordy and eloquent. Adoption of the regulations was moved by Mr. 
Victor S. Bryant, who took a considerable amount of time to review the 
whole history of the controversy and the process by which the laws, poli- 
cies, and regulations had been evolved. In essence, they placed on the 
chancellors the primary responsibility for their enforcement. Mr. Bryant 
stated that he would not be foolish enough "to predict that the passage 
of these regulations will be a complete and final solution to all of our 
troubles." 

Governor Moore also analyzed the suggested regulations and gave them 
his support. Longer statements were made by Messrs. W. A. Johnson, 
Roy Rowe, Archie K. Davis, and Luther Hamilton in favor of the motion. 
Mr. Thomas J. White opposed it because he thought that "it is the duty 



[66] The Consolidated University of North Carolina 

and responsibility of the Board of Trustees to forbid the use of University 
facilities to communist speakers except in the necessary interest of educa- 
tion." The Bryant motion passed with Mr. White voting no. 

Mr. Paul Dickson had made it clear in a polite way that the students of 
the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill could not accept the 
regulations passed by the executive committee. 

The Charlotte Observer of 9 March 1966 stated that "when the Execu- 
tive Committee of the Trustees backed the opinion of Governor Dan 
Moore that Wilkinson should be refused permission to speak on campus, 
it placed Wilkinson into the forbidden fruit category." The paper also re- 
ported that the students were expected to institute court action to test the 
university decision on constitutional grounds. Mr. Wilkinson had been 
invited a second time on 2 March and Acting Chancellor Sitterson, who 
had replaced Chancellor Sharpe, felt that the trustee action in the resolu- 
tion forbidding Mr. Aptheker and Mr. Wilkinson from speaking on the 
campus was binding on him. Regardless of the ban, Mr. Wilkinson came 
to Chapel Hill and standing on the sidewalk and across the wall from 
McCorkle Place, almost within the shadow of the Graham Memorial 
Building, spoke to more than fifteen hundred students. Mr. Aptheker 
later put on a similar performance. In an editorial on 16 March the 
Charlotte Observer stated that "few words or pictures have been more hu- 
miliating for The University of North Carolina than the photograph of a 
banned speaker talking to students across a campus wall. A University 
cannot wall out ideas; a picture of one compelled to try was not edifying." 

Mr. Dickson and other students were joined by Messrs. Aptheker and 
Wilkinson in filing, through their attorney, Mr. McNeill Smith of Greens- 
boro, a complaint in federal court against the Speaker-Ban Law. On 
5 May 1966, President Friday reported to the Board of Trustees as follows: 

Enough has been said and written about the Speaker Bill, and I do 
not intend to add to your accumulation of information on the subject 
except to report that Chancellor Sitterson, Mr. Arch T. Allen, your 
secretary, and I have met several times during recent weeks with the 
Attorney General, his associates, and Col. William Joyner and his as- 
sociates to prepare the answer that was submitted recently to the 
complaint filed in Federal Court by certain students in the Univer- 
sity and others on this matter. I do not know when this case will be 
heard by the Federal Judges, but I do wish for you to know that we 
have provided our attorneys with every assistance requested. 

It was reported in the state press on Tuesday, 20 February 1968, that a 
three-judge federal court composed of Judge Clement F. Haynsworth, Jr., 
of the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, Chief Judge Edwin M. 



The Speaker-Ban Law [67] 

Stanley of the U.S. Middle District Court, and Judge Algernon L. Butler 
of U.S. Eastern District Court had on Monday ruled North Carolina's 
controversial Speaker-Ban Law unconstitutional on charges that it was 
too vague. The judges held that both the state law and university regula- 
tions aimed at controlling speakers on the university campuses were too 
vague to be enforceable. The university, its officers, and trustees were 
forbidden from further action under the state law and campus regula- 
tions, and these were termed "null and void." 

The judges did admit in their written decision that "it is beyond ques- 
tion that Boards of Trustees of State-supported colleges and universities 
have every right to promulgate and enforce rules and regulations consis- 
tent with constitutional principles, governing the appearance of all guest 
speakers." 

It was announced on 23 February by Governor Moore that the state 
would not appeal the federal court decision. Governor Moore's statement 
argued that the decision gave trustees ample authority "to see to it that 
those invited to speak have something to offer the cause of education as 
opposed to the creation of sensationalism and discord." 

He stated further that it was his hope that the trustees and adminis- 
tration of the university would adopt reasonable rules and regulations 
within the framework of this opinion. 

On 26 February 1968 the Board of Trustees authorized Governor Moore 
to appoint a special committee to study the policy and regulations re- 
garding visiting speakers. This committee, composed of Mrs. Virginia 
Lathrop, chairman, Messrs. Victor S. Bryant, Archie K. Davis, George 
Watts Hill, and Thomas J. White, Jr., reported its recommendations to the 
executive committee on 13 May 1968. The report was unanimously rec- 
ommended to the Board of Trustees. 

On 27 May 1968 the board received the report. It contained a policy 
statement that was a very much watered-down version of the policy that 
the board had been required by the Britt Commission to approve. The 
policy statement made no reference to communism. It did provide that: 
"No speaker may be invited to speak or be permitted to use the facilities 
of any campus of the University for the purpose of advocating, advising 
or teaching a doctrine that the Government of the United States, the State 
of North Carolina or any political subdivision thereof shall be overthrown 
or overturned by force of violence or by any other unlawful means." The 
policy was to be enforced by the president and the chancellors. 

The regulations were as follows: 

1. Express effort shall be made to present all sides of controversial 
issues in a balanced program of public addresses. 



[68] The Consolidated University of North Carolina 

2. When the Chancellor deems it appropriate, he shall require that the 
forum be presided over by a senior faculty member. 

3. The right to question or challenge a point of view and to present 
the opposing point of view shall be assured. 

4. Only student and University organizations which are recognized 
by the President and Chancellor may use campus facilities for the 
presentation of speakers. 

5. Non-University organizations authorized through official channels 
to meet on the campus shall be specifically informed that the use of 
facilities must conform to State laws, and to these regulations. 

None of the regulations was in violation of the court opinion expressed 
in Dickson v. Sitterson and Friday. 

President Friday regretted the cost, time, energy, and creative leader- 
ship that had been expended on the controversy, and he expressed the 
hope that "we have learned from this experience that in considering legis- 
lation affecting the constitutional rights of citizens all affected parties 
should be heard." 

When the new Code of the university was completed by the Board of 
Governors in the years following restructuring in 1971, the "policy and 
regulations governing visiting speakers" passed into oblivion. 



POSTSCRIPT 

It is difficult to understand twenty years later how the University of 
North Carolina could have been held hostage to the Speaker-Ban Law for 
five years. The law was placed on the statute books by guile, and it is 
doubtful whether many of those who voted for it during the closing 
hours of the legislative session of 1963 knew what it contained. Clearly it 
was an invasion of academic freedom and a violation of the first amend- 
ment to the Constitution of the United States; however, after it got on the 
statute books, those who supported repealing it could be charged with 
being soft on communism. 

Concerted opposition to the act was generated during the first few 
months and led by President Friday, the chancellors, and the faculty. At 
the crucial meeting of the Board of Trustees on 28 October 1963, it called 
on its chairman, Governor Sanford, to appoint a committee of fifteen with 
the objective of eliminating the Speaker-Ban Law. Governor Sanford pro- 
crastinated until 21 October 1964 before apppointing the committee. 
Many thought he wanted to keep the issue out of the gubernatorial elec- 



The Speaker-Ban Law [69] 

tion of that year. It was 24 May 1965 before the committee reported. By 
this time Governor Dan K. Moore had become chairman of the board. 
The committee had weakened in its resolve of the previous year, indi- 
cating that they would prefer to repeal the law but that they would have a 
better chance of amending it. They presented an amendment for consid- 
eration by the legislature but received little sympathy. The governor was 
not helpful, although he did suggest the appointment of a commission. 

The commission to hear the case against the Speaker-Ban Law held 
meetings in September and a month later came out with a report that was 
arrogant in its demands on the university and the colleges. Also it recom- 
mended a special session of the legislature to place responsibility for en- 
forcing the law on the administrators rather than on the Boards of Trust- 
ees. The legislature acted, but the situation was little improved. 

Throughout all of the controversy, the president, chancellors, faculty, 
students, and members of the executive committee of the Board of Trust- 
ees consumed -what seemed to be endless hours trying to formulate regu- 
lations governing visiting speakers that would not violate academic free- 
dom. This proved impossible, and when persons who fell under the ban 
of the law were invited to speak on the campus at Chapel Hill, the Board 
of Trustees directed the chancellor not to let them speak. This led to a 
situation that enabled the students to take the issue to the federal court. 
The president and chancellors continued to try to mediate the issue 
but this proved futile. In the end, many of the political leaders and even 
some members of the Board of Trustees found it impossible to choose 
loyalty to academic freedom over the risk of being branded communist 
sympathizers. 

The Federal District Court mercifully resolved the issue. It was asked 
by some why the president and chancellors did not bring suit in the Fed- 
eral District Court. This was impossible without a directive from the 
Board of Trustees. President Friday put up a good fight, and eventually 
the issue entered the attic of other bad memories. 



CHAPTER 



Student Unrest 



The decade of the 1960s was one of unusual student unrest among 
American colleges and universities. The reasons are so numerous that it is 
difficult to chart the course of this movement. The full force of it was not 
felt in North Carolina until after 1965; however, there was evidence of it 
beginning 1 February i960, when four black students from A&T State 
College in Greensboro sat down at the lunch counter in Wool worth's, de- 
manded service in defiance of segregation practices, and refused to move 
when denied. Within a week, the sit-in movement spread to six more 
towns in the state, and within a month it had spread to six more states. In 
1 96 1, the Robert F. Williams, Jr., kidnapping episode in Monroe, North 
Carolina, attracted college students from around the state, who came to 
champion the cause of this local chairman of the NAACP. Williams went 
into exile to escape punishment from what appeared to be framed-up 
charges and throughout the 1960s was a hero to some student groups. 
The activities of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee 
(SNCC) attracted followers on some North Carolina campuses. Martin 
Luther King's Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) also 
created great excitement among students, and a few joined some of the 
marches that were gradually desegregating public facilities throughout 
the South. 

The enactment of the Speaker-Ban Law by the North Carolina Legis- 
lature in 1963 provided a rallying point for many different elements in the 
student population over the next four years. A group known as the Stu- 
dents for a Democratic Society (SDS) had been among the leaders in 
bringing Aptheker and Wilkinson to the Chapel Hill campus in 1965; 
however, leadership in taking the issue to the federal court where the law 
was declared unconstitutional was provided by regular student leaders. 

By the middle of the decade, opposition to the involvement of the 
United States in Vietnam was beginning to take the center of the stage. 
This issue was exploited by many groups and organizations on the cam- 
puses of North Carolina colleges, some of which were reported to have 
Communist leanings. From 1965 on, it was not unusual to find groups 

[70] 



Student Unrest [71] 

on college campuses sponsoring large informal protest gatherings that 
came to be known as teach-ins. 

During the decade of the 1960s, persons of many bizarre and offbeat 
life-styles were attracted to college campuses, and there was much discus- 
sion in the news media about the "counterculture," "beatniks," and "yip- 
pies." Institutions of higher learning had long since given up the role of in 
loco parentis and no longer attempted to institute uniform rules of conduct 
for students. In this atmosphere, young people began experimenting in 
many areas that had been forbidden in the past. Among them were the 
use of drugs and open indulgence in alcohol. Contraceptive practices that 
became widely used at this time ushered in a revolution in sexual mores, 
and there was criticism from many sources of the new freedom exhibited 
by college students. 

The University of North Carolina was free during the first half of the 
decade from some of the excesses that disturbed other campuses, notably 
the University -of California at Berkeley where the sit-in device had been 
used to disrupt the campus in December 1964. That technique was not 
unknown to North Carolina as we have already seen, and it was fre- 
quently used in Chapel Hill for desegregating restaurants, movie theaters, 
and other public facilities. The technique was fairly simple: a racially 
mixed group would enter a restaurant and when service was refused, they 
would occupy a portion of the place. When the police appeared, they 
would grow limp and provide an interesting spectacle for television and 
the press. The police were forced to carry them to waiting vehicles and 
transport them in a posture of nonviolent resistance to the nearest police 
station. 

The civil rights demonstrations came to the town of Chapel Hill in ear- 
nest in the spring of 1963. The first demonstration was carried out by two 
students, Mr. John Dunne and Mr. Pat Cusic, who called themselves the 
Student Peace Union and picketed the College Cafe on Franklin Street 
beginning 15 April with no appreciable results. Shortly after this, the 
Committee for Open Business (COB), which had about sixty members, 
was organized with the objective of desegregating all business establish- 
ments in the town. On 25 May approximately 350 people joined the COB 
in a march down Franklin Street, which resulted in some establishments 
opening their doors to blacks. Throughout the summer of 1963 the COB 
usually had several weekly marches and they regularly picketed such seg- 
regated establishments as the Colonial Drug Store, Brady's Restaurant, 
and Leo's Restaurant. The COB tried to persuade the Chapel Hill Board 
of Aldermen to pass a "public accommodations ordinance," but it was 
rejected by the board on 25 June. The first sit-in in Chapel Hill was car- 
ried out by COB protesters, both black and white, at the Chapel Hill 



[72] The Consolidated University of North Carolina 

Merchants Association where many were arrested and later found guilty 
of trespass. The COB was replaced by a more militant group called the 
Chapel Hill Freedom Committee with a broader base of support. It was 
made up of a few university professors from Duke and the university at 
Chapel Hill, some students, many nonstudents who had come to Chapel 
Hill, and several ministers. Perhaps the most active member of the group 
was the Reverend Charles Jones of the Community Church. In December 
1963, sit-ins led by the Chapel Hill Freedom Committee began in ear- 
nest. Seven or more restaurants and motels that were still segregated were 
the objects of demonstrations. More than 150 demonstrators were ar- 
rested before the Christmas break at the university began. In January 1964 
there was a sit-in at Watts Grill which involved five Duke University pro- 
fessors, two university at Chapel Hill professors plus four other persons, 
among them an aged, retired minister. It was alleged that they were the 
object of some violence before the law officials arrived. At about this 
time, the Chapel Hill Board of Aldermen again rejected a public accom- 
modations ordinance, and the Committee on Racial Equality (CORE) 
led by Mr. James Farmer was reported to have given the town of Chapel 
Hill a deadline of 1 February to integrate. When the deadline passed with- 
out action on the part of the town, there were massive demonstrations 
in Chapel Hill. These included sit-downs on major highways leading into 
Chapel Hill at the time of a basketball game, and hundreds of protesters 
were arrested. 

During all of this time, there were no disorders on the campus of the 
university. In the beginning, Chancellor Aycock made it clear that he in- 
tended to enforce the law; however, he also stated that he would not inter- 
fere with any peaceful protests. At least two students who had been found 
guilty of violating the law against trespassing and blocking highway 
traffic were brought before the Student Honor Court for "ungentlemanly 
conduct." However, they were acquitted and because of this fact, the 
Honor Court received some criticism from the civil authorities. 

Several attempts were made to persuade the Chapel Hill Freedom 
Committee to stop demonstrating until the United States Congress had 
time to act on the Civil Rights Bill, which was under consideration at that 
time. These attempts were all unsuccessful. Many of the persons who 
were arrested for trespassing and blocking traffic were tried and given 
what were considered to be severe sentences by Judge Raymond Mallard. 
Strangely, the Chapel Hill demonstrations of 1963 and 1964 received little 
attention from the press and from television. 

There were other demonstrations and disorder during the summer in 
Durham. A major confrontation was narrowly averted in Raleigh. In all, 
it was estimated that approximately two thousand persons were arrested 



Student Unrest [73] 

in North Carolina during this period for involvement in civil rights 
demonstrations. 

The civil rights issue became involved in the democratic gubernatorial 
primary. The candidate most critical of the pending legislation in Con- 
gress, Mr. I. Beverly Lake, was eliminated in the first primary; however, 
in the second primary, Governor Sanford endorsed Judge Richardson 
Preyer and Mr. Lake endorsed Mr. Dan K. Moore. Mr. Moore won the 
nomination and eventually was elected governor. Many people thought 
that the civil rights disturbances of 1964 played a decisive role in the 
election. 

Fortunately for the town of Chapel Hill, Congress passed the Civil 
Rights Act in June 1964. Almost immediately, all places that had been 
picketed by the Freedom Committee were opened to everyone and civil 
peace descended on the village. The university, with the exception of a 
few professors and students, had remained aloof from the disorders. 

The legislature of North Carolina, anticipating the day when North 
Carolina colleges and universities would be called on to contend with sit- 
ins and other disruptive acts, passed a law in 1965 against such tactics. It 
was not many years before marches and other demonstrations showed up 
on the campuses. At first, they remained peaceful and nonviolent. In the 
fall of 1967 there were enough black students on the Chapel Hill campus 
to begin to make their presence felt. The NAACP was not militant enough 
to satisfy some of these students and under the leadership of Mr. Preston 
Dobbins and Mr. Reggie Hawkins, they organized the Black Student 
Movement (BSM) after they had taken over a meeting of the NAACP and 
voted it out of existence. In February 1968, when three black students 
were killed by law enforcement officers in Orangeburg, South Carolina, 
the BSM members, sixty in number, marched from the campus to the 
downtown post office where they burned in effigy the governor of South 
Carolina. However, it was the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr., 
on 4 April 1968 that marked in Mr. Dobbins's words, "the end of an era 
of peaceful nonviolent reaction." On 5 April about thirty-five BSM stu- 
dents bought several Confederate flags and burned them in front of the 
Kappa Alpha fraternity House. There was to be a biracial procession on 
Sunday, 7 April, with Chancellor Sitterson, President Friday and others, 
in honor of Martin Luther King, Jr., but Dobbins refused to march stat- 
ing that he would not lead anything that was 90 percent white. 

On 8 April, the BSM asked all black University of North Carolina em- 
ployees not to work the next day, and about 90 percent of the black em- 
ployees failed to show, closing all but one dining hall. Mr. Dobbins stated 
of his success, "Black workers will realize after today the tremendous 
power we have if we act as a community. We can cripple this University 



[74] The Consolidated University of North Carolina 

and the University officials realize it." The assassination of Martin Luther 
King touched off nationwide a series of more than sixty riots in Ameri- 
can cities. This was a continuation of the violence and destruction that 
had begun with the burning of Watts in Los Angeles in 1965 and had 
caused widespread destruction in Chicago and Cleveland in 1966 and in 
Detroit and Newark in 1967. The Black Student Movement was active for 
the rest of 1968. In the fall they sponsored a black symposium and on 
21 November, Stokely Carmichael, one of the radical black activists, at 
the invitation of the BSM spoke in Carmichael Auditorium to over 6,700 
people, 95 percent of whom were white. Some state legislators by this 
time were discussing rewriting the Speaker-Ban Law, and President Fri- 
day stated publicly that, while he personally deplored Carmichael's re- 
marks, he did not favor attempts at prior restraints of campus speakers. 
At a special meeting of the executive committee of the Consolidated 
University Board of Trustees on 11 October 1968, Mr. Friday made his 
first statement on student activism. As reported in the minutes, he: 

Reviewed several phases of the matter of student restlessness and 
reported to the Committee that he, his staff and the Chancellors 
studied it most intently during the summer. Included in their study 
were regulations concerning liquor, the use of drugs, the desire to 
change closing hours for women, permission for women to visit in 
men's dormitories and student demonstrations. Students are in- 
formed as to what the State laws are and they know that they will be 
enforced. . . . If it is necessary to take action, it must be based on 
statutory regulations and certainty that the terms of the law are clear 
to the participants. 

At the meeting of the executive committee on 8 November the student- 
body leaders from the four institutions were present, and each was given 
an opportunity to present what he believed to be student attitudes and 
interests. The president of the student body at North Carolina State Uni- 
versity, Wes McClure, concluded the presentations and stressed the genu- 
ine concern and sincerity of students to be constructive and cooperative 
with the university administration, faculties, and the Board of Trustees. 
He insisted that they wanted to encourage a closer relationship and a 
better understanding of the issues confronting universities today. 

On 11 December 1968 the BSM, following the widespread practice 
across the country at that time, presented Chancellor Sitterson with 
twenty-three demands. These demands not only covered the concerns of 
black students but also the university's treatment of its black workers. 
Support for their demands came from many organizations: the Daily Tar 
Heel, the AAUP, the Southern Students Organizing Committee, the Stu- 



Student Unrest [75] 

dent Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, and the New University 
Conference made up of graduate students and young faculty members. 

Chancellor Sitterson's response to the BSM demands came in a nineteen- 
page document on 24 January 1969. He agreed to some of the demands, 
such as a faculty-student committee to study the possibility of an Afro- 
American curriculum and to study the campus status of minority stu- 
dents. He dismissed the demand to fire certain administrators and said 
that other demands were too vague or beyond the reach of the univer- 
sity's administrative jurisdiction. The BSM called Chancellor Sitterson's 
response a flat rejection of their demands, but most editorials across the 
state praised him. The strongest support for the demands on the campus 
came from certain members of the Graduate Student Association and 
from several faculty members in the Department of Sociology. 

Other institutions in North Carolina were also having difficulty. In 
Greensboro, at North Carolina A&T College, black students occupied 
the administrative building until they were promised that their demands 
would be met. At Duke, on 13 February over fifty black students oc- 
cupied Allen Building. This resulted in a free-for-all with about twenty 
persons requiring hospitalization. It also resulted in most of the black's 
demands being met. 

BSM leaders met with Chancellor Sitterson on 18 February and added 
three new demands: (1) to stop using white mediators to deal with black 
problems, (2) to recognize BSM as the official university organization 
representing black interests, and (3) to accede to BSM's right to make de- 
mands on the university. Chancellor Sitterson's response, the next day, 
was conciliatory in tone but noncommittal. On the same day, President 
Friday promised to do what was necessary to enforce laws prohibiting 
obstruction of public buildings. 

At the regular meeting of the Board of Trustees on 2 December 1968, 
which was Governor Moore's last meeting, there was much nostalgia, and 
Mr. Bryant read a resolution that was among his best efforts. The gover- 
nor responded with a tribute to the leadership of the board and the uni- 
versity administration. At this same meeting Trustee Henry Foscue re- 
ported on a conference that he had attended in Denver, Colorado, on 
"Crisis on the Campus: Import for Governance." He summarized some 
of the concerns of students about the Vietnam War and issues related to it, 
racial discrimination, poverty, the slowness of institutions to update cur- 
ricula, the precipitous use of policemen, and the overemphasis of technol- 
ogy and the underemphasis of human rights in our society. He pointed 
out that many of the troubles on campuses had been started by a small 
number of radical activists, but they found common cause with large 
numbers of troubled students who believed that the only way they could 



[76] The Consolidated University of North Carolina 

get a hearing was by dramatic action. Mr. Foscue suggested that "stu- 
dents should be treated as adults and expected to act as adults. Many 
of the students today are graduate students and even many of the under- 
graduates are more than twenty-one years of age." He said "students do 
not expect to run the institutions, but they do want to be involved." He 
stated finally that "we are living in a day when many people are seeking 
identity in a society and . . . we need to devote a little more time to in- 
forming ourselves concerning some of the impacts of modern technology 
on the attitudes of people." 

At the regular meeting of the executive committee on 10 January 1969, 
with Governor Scott presiding for the first time, student relationships 
were discussed. The laws governing the purchase, possession, and con- 
sumption of alcoholic beverages were presented by Acting Vice President 
Henry Lewis. He emphasized that the university did not condone the use 
of such beverages by students, and it was agreed that all four institutions 
in the university should carry the same statement concerning the univer- 
sity's stand on alcoholic beverages. President Friday repeated that the ad- 
ministration was prepared to see that the law governing disruption was 
obeyed and that students would be advised as to what the law is. If they 
did not conform, they would be arrested; however, he emphasized that 
whatever was done would be in accordance with due process of law. 

Chancellor Sitterson acquainted the committee with developments 
since the black students had presented their demands to his office and 
assured the members that careful consideration was being given to a 
thoughtful and fair answer. He reiterated President Friday's suggestion 
that "wisdom and patience are required on the part of all concerned." 

It was not widely known, but the university food service directed by 
Mr. George W. Prillaman was in financial trouble by 1969. The lifestyle 
of students had changed, and many of them were no longer using the 
campus food service. As a matter of fact, out of the nearly 16,000 stu- 
dents in the university, only about 6,000 lived in the dormitories. Many 
of the dormitory residents were beginning to prepare some of their meals 
in their rooms. Mr. Prillaman had been director of food service for a 
number of years and probably had developed certain ways of administer- 
ing the service that were outmoded. Perhaps those over him should have 
been more diligent and when the food service began to lose money, the 
appropriate measures could have been taken. At any rate, by February 
1969 Mr. Prillaman and the food service were in difficult straits, and he 
did not have the resources to do what should have been done for the 
workers. 

Even as early as October 1968 there had been protests, and twenty-one 
suggestions were made for improving employer-employee relationships. 



Student Unrest [77] 

Before the BSM made its demands to the Chancellor on 1 1 December, 
some of which related to the nonacademic employees, the food workers 
were meeting informally with BSM members. 

University administrators recognized the existence of a number of 
related problems growing out of the shaky status of the food service, 
pressure from black students, pressure from public opinion and from 
the State Legislature — all of these potential excuses for reviving a new 
Speaker-Ban Law. 

The workers in the Pine Room of Lenoir Hall were upset because of the 
recent firing of one of the workers. Another worker, Mrs. Elizabeth 
Brooks, had a confrontation with the supervisor because of her work as- 
signment. He refused to alter the assignment, and Mrs. Brooks was told 
that she had to follow orders, which she refused to do. That evening 
some workers in Lenoir Hall met with Mr. Dobbins who encouraged 
them to make a decision to strike. When the Pine Room opened again on 
Sunday afternoon, 23 February 1969, the employees walked from behind 
the counters and sat together at a table in the dining room. The super- 
visor, Mr. Otis White, tried to persuade them to go back to work. When 
they refused he called Mr. Prillaman, but the two still could not influence 
them to return. The next day about one hundred campus dining-hall 
workers did not report for work. Only Lenoir Hall remained open. The 
food-service workers arranged with BSM and other sympathizing groups 
to prepare soul food at home to serve in nearby Manning Hall, which had 
just been vacated by the law school and was about to be renovated. They 
continued to hold meetings and dispense food from Manning Hall for 
over two weeks. The workers tried to disrupt the delivery of food to the 
dining hall, but Mr. Prillaman arranged for delivery at times when they 
were not on the alert. At the end of the first week, the administration 
stuck to its original statement that grievances could be worked out if 
workers returned to their duties and met the personnel officers individ- 
ually. The strikers and their sympathizers adopted a new tactic which 
they called the stall-in. They would go slowly through the lines and take 
just a glass of water and sit one at a table. This infuriated some of the 
students who wanted to eat in the cafeteria, and at supper on Tuesday, 
4 March, a scuffle resulted from the slowdown tactic. Several of those 
who were slowing the line were slightly injured. The police arrived 
promptly and no further violence ensued until about 6:40 p.m. when Mr. 
Dobbins and other BSM members gathered at the north end of Lenoir 
Hall, and to dramatize their protest went through the hall turning over 
tables as customers, police, and workers looked on. Lenoir Hall was 
closed immediately. That night at Manning Hall the Nonacademic Em- 
ployees Union of the University of North Carolina was formed. Its im- 



[78] The Consolidated University of North Carolina 

mediate goals were a minimum wage of $1.80 per hour, the appointment 
of a black supervisor, and time and a half for all overtime. The next day 
there was a rally of about 1,200 supporters of the strikers. 

President Friday and Chancellor Sitterson met with Governor Scott on 
5 March. The governor, on his own initiative, had sent a memorandum 
dated 20 February 1969 to "Presidents, State-supported Institutions of 
Higher Learning." It was on procedures to use in case of seizure of build- 
ings and other disturbances on any campus of state institutions of higher 
learning. It was a blunt and gratuitous document on the part of the in- 
experienced governor who had been in office less than two months, in 
which he set forth twelve points that represented the kind of procedure 
that was bound to please conservatives who were not experienced in deal- 
ing with volatile, youthful crowds. Chancellor Sitterson and President 
Friday tried to convince him that there was no need for the National 
Guard or highway patrolmen because there was no physical danger. Some 
of the governor's close associates were reported to have convinced him 
that a show of force would be a popular move. 

Chancellor Sitterson prepared a statement for release that night, an- 
nouncing that independent firms would check such grievances as unpaid 
overtime and job classifications. Before the announcement could be made, 
Governor Scott ordered four National Guard units to assemble in Durham 
as a "precautionary measure." He also sent five squads of highway pa- 
trolmen to Lenoir Hall and ordered.it reopened. His orders came a few 
hours ahead of the time President Friday and Chancellor Sitterson had 
decided on for reopening the facility. The University Graduate Student 
Association sent Scott a telegram urging him "to resist the use of military 
force." There was also some excitement in the State Legislature. The 
campus was in an uproar for the next week. Teaching assistants were 
threatening to postpone their classes until the police left. University offi- 
cials had to tell them that such action could result in their dismissal. The 
workers refused to meet with the state personnel director in Raleigh be- 
cause he had rebuffed them when they had approached him previously. 
President Friday and Chancellor Sitterson announced that they had re- 
ferred the matter to the North Carolina attorney general. On 1 1 March, 
Chancellor Sitterson spoke to a meeting of the faculty in Memorial Hall, 
which was moved from Hill Hall to allow seating for spectators. Part 
of his speech was the official university response to the food workers' 
grievances. 

The occupation of Manning Hall continued, and Chancellor Sitterson 
ordered that something be done about the loudspeaker of the BSM at 
Manning. It was disrupting classes and the offices of professors located 
nearby. Mr. Dobbins consented to turn it off on 13 March. Governor 



Student Unrest [79] 

Scott ordered the highway patrol to clear Manning Hall and to arrest the 
students responsible for the table-turning episode. The Chapel Hill chief 
of police, Mr. William Blake, did not want to give the arrest warrants to 
the highway patrol. Instead, he went in alone without a gun to present the 
warrants to the eight students, seven of whom were black. Manning Hall, 
on the advice of Howard Fuller, was vacated before the highway troops 
appeared. Fuller was a well-known activist who had graduated in social 
work from Western Reserve University and had been on the staff of the 
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill as a part-time lecturer in so- 
cial work from 1965 to 1968. He was living in Durham and participated 
extensively in activities on the Duke campus. In addition, he had orga- 
nized an independent university in Durham known as the Malcolm X 
School of Liberation, which for a brief period attracted a lot of attention. 

On 14 March, a small group of student government leaders met in 
Raleigh with the executive committee of the Board of Trustees to discuss 
the situation. At this meeting, President Friday stated that there had been 
no confrontation, no riot, no fire, and no student strike on the campus, 
and that this was to the credit of many students, faculty members, and the 
university administrative staff. He pointed out further that this could not 
be said about any other major university campus in the country, and he 
assured the executive committee that the university would enforce the 
law when any crime was committed. The executive committee passed a 
resolution proposed by Mr. Bryant that commended the president "for 
his clear and unequivocal statements of the University policy and for the 
cooperation of his entire administrative department." The commendation 
was also extended to all of the chancellors. The resolution had the follow- 
ing statement about the governor: "We appreciate all the efforts of the 
Chairman of our Board, the Governor of the State, who has spoken as a 
representative of the people of North Carolina in pledging that the educa- 
tional institutions of our State will not be closed or disrupted by the 
willful efforts of a few violent agitators." 

Mr. Thomas White seconded the motion and the resolution was 
adopted unanimously, whereupon Governor Scott read a personal state- 
ment regarding the recent occurrences on some of the campuses of the 
university and requested that it be included in the record. The statement 
takes up five pages in the minutes of the Board of Trustees and was a 
vigorous and almost immoderate lecture to the officials of the university 
for not acting more swiftly in dealing with the students and faculty. At 
one point he stated that the president, in going before the Appropriations 
Committee of the General Assembly on behalf of the administrative offi- 
cers, might be asked "to justify their continued failure to take such positive 
action in the current difficulty as the facts warrant and the law permits." It 



[8o] The Consolidated University of North Carolina 

was reported in news accounts that Scott "vilified" the University of 
North Carolina officials. A resolution was adopted by a vote often to five 
which provided a temporary policy, pending action of the Board of 
Trustees, for dealing with students and members of the faculty who en- 
gaged in disruptive behavior. 

In the afternoon following the meeting of the executive committee, 
Chancellor Sitterson spoke to a meeting of the students in Memorial 
Hall. He complimented them for their behavior and expressed "a deep 
sense of sadness" for the presence of outside police on the campus. He 
noted that "we are all in this together." He announced that an auditor had 
found 1 68 cases of overtime due to workers since February 1968 for a total 
of $2,000. He also mentioned the possibility that more was owed as the 
auditors went back to February 1967 when the university first came 
under jurisdiction of the Fair Labor Standards Act. He said that efforts 
were being made to resolve the job classification problems and to institute 
a five-day, forty-hour week. Mrs. Doris Stephens, the worker unfairly 
fired before the walkout, had been invited back to work, and he reported 
that supervisors would now be employed without regard to color. He left 
the building, and two of the strike leaders told the students that they ap- 
preciated what the chancellor was doing but still demanded the $1.80 
minimum wage, Mr. Prillaman's ouster, and a black supervisor. A few 
days later at a student vigil for the strikers, one of the workers told stu- 
dents that they had just received their overtime checks and they were not 
happy. The largest check was $13. Employees were told that they could 
question the auditors directly on Tuesday. 

Senator Ralph Scott, the governor's uncle, introduced a bill in the State 
Senate for an immediate 10 percent raise for all state nonacademic em- 
ployees. Senator Scott said, "They've been promised a lot they've never 
gotten . . . they need some concrete results to get back to work." Also, 
on that day, the highway patrol began to withdraw from the campus. 
Mr. Prillaman was reassigned to the Accounting Department in charge of 
revising the food service record system. Food workers complained that 
he was being put in charge of correcting the very system he had fouled up 
but were told by the administration that he would have no decision- 
making responsibilities. 

During the negotiations the folk singer, Joan Baez, gave a benefit con- 
cert in Chapel Hill for the food workers, increasing their benefit fund by 
$5,000. At the performance one of the strike leaders called for a general 
strike by students and teaching assistants from classes, beginning the 
next morning. This caused conflict among student leaders who had not 
been consulted and who did not support a strike in view of the progress 
that had been made. The next day few students followed the strike request. 



Student Unrest [81] 

On Thursday, 20 March, three of the strike leaders and their lawyers 
met in Raleigh with Governor Scott. He agreed that the demanded salary 
raise was just. According to some reports, the meeting had been arranged 
by Senator Ralph Scott who was acquainted with one of the strike lead- 
ers, Mrs. Mary Smith, from Pleasant Grove in Alamance County. Sena- 
tor Scott told the Governor to listen to Mrs. Smith. On the night of 
20 March the Governor called Mrs. Smith to assure her that a settlement 
would be reached. 

Meanwhile, students on the campus were making plans to storm South 
Building and occupy it at noon on Friday if the strike were not settled. 
More than a thousand people were gathered, wondering if they would 
have to carry through on their threat to take South Building by force, 
when a telephone call came from Raleigh announcing that an agreement 
had been reached between the governor and the food workers' lawyers. 
Governor Scott announced pay raises to $1.80 an hour, effective 1 April, 
for about 5,000 of the lowest paid state employees, including the striking 
cafeteria workers. He said that he had been assured that the strikers, 
about 1 10 of them, would return. The increase averaged about 12 percent. 

This was a clear victory for the handful of black cafeteria workers who 
had gone on strike and started a chain of events that brought pay raises to 
5,000 state workers. 

Mr. Preston Dobbins, leader of the Black Student Movement, said, 
"This is not the end. What has happened here today is the beginning of 
what will be done. A whole lot of things need to be done." Howard 
Fuller, the Black Community Action organizer from Durham, said the 
strike "proves black people can do their own thing. It's proved the Chan- 
cellor has no power, because if the man in the Statehouse gets shaky 
enough, he is going to do his own thing." 

During this crisis there had been further disorder in North Carolina. 
On Friday, 14 March, in Greensboro at North Carolina A&T State Col- 
lege, a student boycott in support of striking employees of the privately 
owned food service on the campus ended in a confrontation with the po- 
lice that resulted in tear gas, gunfire, injuries, and eighteen arrests. In 
Durham, on 13 February, fifty black students occupied Duke's Allen 
Building. Howard Fuller urged them not to give up voluntarily but, 
faced with a one-hour ultimatum and the threat of being evicted by 1 50 
Durham police and state highway patrolmen, the students evacuated the 
building at nightfall. They were joined outside by 2,000 students and 
others. They were all hemmed in by law enforcement officers. A violent 
confrontation resulted with bottles, rocks, and tear gas thrown. Twenty 
people required hospitalization. 

The strikers at Chapel Hill went back to work, and the university ad- 



[82] The Consolidated University of North Carolina 

ministration, at a meeting of the executive committee on 9 May 1969, 
proposed regulations for dealing with the disruption of educational pro- 
cesses. Governor Scott said that he had given a good deal of thought to 
the matter and it was his belief that the court sentences given to those 
arrested for disruption in the dining hall "pretty well reduced general dis- 
cussion of the issue." He stated that "the action and resolution proposed 
by the President is a forthright and satisfactory procedure for the future." 
After considerable discussion, Mr. Bryant submitted a tentative proposal 
for a change in a portion of the by-laws of the Code "dealing with the 
responsibilities, duties and functions of the principal officers of the Uni- 
versity." These proposals were considered by the committee and it was 
decided that they should be studied further. President Friday withdrew 
his recommendations and suggested that the governor request a subcom- 
mittee to meet with faculty representatives to study the matter further. 
He also pointed out that the action would leave the administration with- 
out a policy. It was decided that the president should meet with the chan- 
cellors immediately following the meeting so that they would be in agree- 
ment on any temporary course to follow in the case of disruptive action 
on any campus. The governor had asked Mr. Archie K. Davis on 30 April 
1969 to serve as chairman of a subcommittee to study the matter of stu- 
dent and faculty discipline, and he appointed Messrs. Barber, Bryant, 
Maynard, and White to serve with him. Mr. Bryant's suggestion was re- 
ferred to that subcommittee. This initiated a long train of meetings be- 
tween the subcommittee, the administration, and representatives of the 
University Faculty Advisory Council over the next five months. At the 
regular meeting of the Board of Trustees on 27 October 1969, the Code 
was amended "to provide for handling the offense of disruption of the 
educational process and other activities of the University and clarifying 
responsibility for student discipline." 

Mr. Davis gave a history of the activities his subcommittee had en- 
gaged in to develop the amendment to the Code. The subcommittee was 
guided by seven fundamental conclusions around which it worked, as 
follows: 

1. Willful disruption of the educational process, destruction of prop- 
erty, and interference with the rights of others by any members of 
the University community (students, faculty, and other employees) 
should be plainly defined and prohibited. 

2. Conviction of the prohibited conduct should be made grounds for 
suspension, expulsion, or discharge. 

3. Responsibility for enforcing regulations on the subject should be 
placed upon the President, allowing him to obtain assistance from 



Student Unrest [83] 

appropriate officers and agencies of the institution in carrying out 
his duties. 

4. Conviction of a member of the University community in a state or 
federal court should not preclude the University from exercising its 
disciplinary authority in any case of misconduct, and no officer or 
agency of the University should have authority to grant amnesty or 
make any promise as to prosecution or nonprosecution to a person 
charged with disruptive conduct. 

5. To prevent the occurrence, continuation, or recurrence of conduct 
disruptive of the educational process, destruction of University 
property, or interference with the rights of others, the University 
administration should be authorized to seek injunctive relief from 
the civil courts. 

6. The unauthorized possession of firearms and other weapons on 
University premises should be made a ground for suspension from 
the University. 

7. To resolve any possible ambiguity, ultimate responsibility for the 
regulation of student conduct should be imposed upon the Chan- 
cellor with respect to his own institution. 

The amendment to the Code was adopted unanimously. It consisted of 
a definition of disruptive conduct, the responsibility of chancellors, the 
responsibility of the president, the responsibility of the trustees, a pro- 
hibition of amnesty, and a provision for publication. In addition, there 
was an amendment to a section of the by-laws of the Board of Trustees 
that prohibited firearms and other weapons on the campus. 

The amendment to the Code was widely circulated and it was hoped that 
this would settle the matter; however, requests continued from the Faculty 
Advisory Committee and from the student bodies for a change that would 
give faculty and students a role in advising a chancellor concerning those 
alleged to be guilty of engaging in disruptive behavior. Deliberation on 
this matter went on for an additional year and finally on 26 October 1970, 
the combined efforts of a committee of eighteen — composed of six trust- 
ees, six faculty members, and six student body presidents with Mr. Wil- 
liam A. Dees, Jr., as chairman working with a subcommittee of the 
executive committee consisting of Chairman Bryant, Mrs. Lathrop, Mr. 
Andrews, Mr. Davis, and Mr. Maynard — resulted in a further revision 
that was adopted by a majority vote of the Board of Trustees. 

Shortly after this, the attention of leaders in higher education in North 
Carolina became focused on the great restructuring battle and there were 
no further troubles with disruption. 



[84] The Consolidated University of North Carolina 

The academic year 1969-70, however, was wracked with further diffi- 
culties, including another strike among the food workers and the unrest 
that developed because of President Nixon's conduct of the war in Viet- 
nam and its extension into Cambodia. 

After the settlement of the dining room workers' strike, the university 
at Chapel Hill continued to operate the food service the remainder of the 
year; however, the financial losses had been so severe that it did not seem 
wise to attempt to continue the service for the academic year 1969-70. 
The franchise for operating the dining halls was given on contract to 
SAGA Food Service, a private corporation, with the hope that it could 
make the operation profitable. There was much argument over the terms 
on which SAGA took over the operation; consequently, on Friday, 7 No- 
vember, about 135 of the 147 full-time SAGA nonmanagement employees 
went on strike. The strike was precipitated by the discharge of a number 
of employees during the previous two weeks. These included four who 
were on the Nonacademic Employees Union Organizing Committee. 
The others who were discharged also supported the union. Four of the 
six campus cafeterias operated by SAGA were closed. 

The workers argued that SAGA was trying to crush the union- 
organizing attempts. Two of the key organizers were offered managerial 
positions if they would give up organizing and they refused. The de- 
mands of the workers who had transferred from the university to SAGA 
were not very different from the demands of the previous spring. This 
time their dispute was with a private corporation rather than the university. 

The Faculty Council passed a resolution offering to mediate the dis- 
pute; however, the union organizers discouraged this. SAGA agreed to 
bargain with the union representative if the employees voted for union 
affiliation by secret ballot; however, SAGA fired four additional striking 
workers and announced that when operations were resumed they would 
reduce the number of full-time employees from 147 to 100. On Friday 21 
November, the full-time workers voted by a majority of 94-26 to affiliate 
with the American Federation of State-County Municipal Employees 
(AFSCME), and on Sunday negotiations between SAGA and the union 
began. The most important demand was that all employees be returned to 
work. The representative of SAGA stated that the company would not do 
this, and the strikers all walked out. Another attempt was made at nego- 
tiations on Monday, but SAGA refused to meet in the same room with the 
striking workers. Negotiations reached a standstill. The company then 
began to employ replacements for the striking workers. A group of stu- 
dents, faculty, and townspeople demanded that the university either force 
SAGA to come to terms with the workers or terminate their contract. The 
next day, Mr. Howard Fuller, leader of Malcolm X Liberation University 
of Durham, and a number of his students joined the picketing. An inci- 



Student Unrest [85] 

dent occurred that precipitated a violent confrontation between pickets 
and the police. An injunction was obtained preventing Howard Fuller, 
James Lee, Preston Dobbins, and several other leaders of the strikers from 
coming on or in the vicinity of the campus for the duration of the strike. 
Representatives of AFSCME and SAGA officials met with the Faculty 
Council Mediation Committee but no agreement was reached. After a 
weekend of bargaining, a compromise settlement was reached, which 
provided that all workers, including those fired just preceding the strike 
and those fired during the weeks of picketing, would be rehired by SAGA 
until other jobs for unneeded employees could be found in other depart- 
ments of the university. The rehiring of all workers had been the major 
issue of the strike. A number of other concessions relating to vacations, 
holidays, sick leave, and a checkoff system for payment of union dues 
were also included in the settlement. 

The settlement was negotiated by Dr. Paul N. Guthrie of the School of 
Business Administration, and President Friday encouraged settlement 
on the terms finally reached, but he had no personal involvement in 
the negotiations. He gave the three-man mediation panel, headed by 
Dr. Guthrie, full credit for the settlement. The workers returned to their 
duties on 9 December. 

Black students came from throughout North Carolina to the university 
campus to help the workers celebrate the end of the strike. During the 
strike about sixteen persons were arrested and five treated for minor cuts 
and bruises in three separate instances of violence on the picket lines. 

SAGA continued to operate the food service until the expiration of its 
contract on 27 May 1970. 

The university did not want to resume operating the service which had 
shown a loss during its final four years. SAGA, one of the largest food 
service companies in the nation, had lost financially. There was some dis- 
cussion that the food service workers might attempt to operate the ser- 
vice on a cooperative basis but nothing came of this. 

The decline in the cafeteria business on campus was attributed to the 
decreasing percentage of students living on campus, the increasing per- 
centage of students with cars, the addition of snack bars in some dor- 
mitories, and the use of refrigerators in dormitory rooms. In addition, 
there had been a great increase in the number of privately owned restau- 
rants within walking distance of the campus. The deterioration of the ser- 
vice due to neglect by those responsible for supervision probably con- 
tributed significantly. The main cafeteria lines were closed for a number 
of years at Chapel Hill until there was a change in the life-style of students 
that led to a demand in the 80s that the cafeterias be reopened. Regular 
food service continued on all of the other campuses. 

On 14 March 1969 the civil rights issue was raised in the executive 



[86] The Consolidated University of North Carolina 

committee of the Board of Trustees when Victor Bryant asked that some- 
thing be done to improve the method of screening new appointees to the 
faculty. It was decided later that a questionnaire should be sent to pro- 
spective appointees asking, "Have you ever been subjected to an inquiry, 
hearing or proceeding relating to the violation of any state, local or fed- 
eral ordinance other than a traffic violation?" The questionnaire also 
asked if one had been subjected to questioning involving violations of 
any campus regulation or ordinance at any time. This questionnaire 
caused considerable controversy on the four campuses, and departmental 
chairmen pointed out the difficulty it caused them in negotiating with 
prospective faculty. The questionnaire idea was later dropped, and it was 
decided to send those who were offered appointments a copy of trustee 
regulations on disruptions. 

During the spring there were no disruptions on the campuses. On 
1 8 March the governor was confronted by about 250 black marchers from 
across the state, who presented him with a schedule of demands. After a 
closed-door conference with a committee from the marchers, the group 
disbanded the following day with the impression that they had made 
some progress. It was a frustrating experience for the marchers since they 
had waited in the rain most of the day for the Reverend Ralph David 
Abernathy of Atlanta to address their rally. He had been unable to appear 
because of the weather. 

The university was quiet during the summer, but when the students 
returned in the fall they began to show their frustrations with the course 
of the Vietnam War, which they had expected President Nixon to settle. 
Plans were made for what they called a moratorium which actually con- 
sisted of a large demonstration and withdrawal from classes. On Wednes- 
day, 16 October 1969, thousands of students gathered to hear an address 
by Jack Newfield, associate editor of the Village Voice, against the war and 
against the policies of President Nixon. The audience included President 
Friday, Chancellor Sitterson, and many leading members of the faculty. 
Similar meetings were held at North Carolina State University, East 
Carolina University, and Duke University. The call for students to boy- 
cott classes in the face of the disruption policy that had been adopted by 
the Board of Trustees was not very successful and the war protests did not 
become a crucial issue until the spring of 1970. 

On 30 April 1970 President Nixon announced that several thousand 
ground troops had entered Cambodia. That night, the student legislature 
at Chapel Hill passed a resolution condemning his actions. In the reso- 
lution, they urged "all students whose consciences do not support United 
States Military involvement in Southeast Asia to boycott classes on 
Wednesday, May 6, 1970, and to attend a rally on that day." On Monday, 



Student Unrest [87] 

4 May, the confrontation between students and the National Guard in 
which four students were killed occurred on the Kent State campus in 
Ohio. This acted as a catalytic agent and aroused students all over the 
United States. There had already occurred on the Chapel Hill campus in 
April a Moratorium Festival attended by about 2,000 students protesting 
the war in Southeast Asia. Following the incident at Kent State, some 
graduate teaching assistants refused to meet their classes as a protest. 
They were joined by about 2,000 student strikers who marched on South 
Building, chanting "On strike, shut it down." The next day, ninety-one 
Morehead Scholars signed a petition expressing solidarity with the strikers 
and at a 1:00 p.m. rally, Student Body President Tom Bello urged stu- 
dents to continue the strike but to remain nonviolent. Mr. Dick Roman, 
a full-time instructor in sociology, called for the faculty to join the strike. 
A total of 84 professors and teaching assistants signed a petition granting 
striking students amnesty for striking and missing classes or examina- 
tions. On 7 May, English graduate students put forth three proposals to 
the faculty concerning student strikers. The proposals in the form of a 
petition were signed by 3,800 students. They asked the faculty to: "join 
the strike as faculty of The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 
approve the participation in the strike by individual faculty members, and 
give those students who participated in the strike final grades on the basis 
of work thus far completed this semester, i.e., students will not be penal- 
ized academically for participation in the strike, for missing classes, or 
for missing exams." 

The situation by this time was growing exceedingly tense and there 
was a risk that it would get completely out of hand. 

A general faculty meeting was called at 4:00 p.m. at Hill Hall to discuss 
the petition and the strike situation in general. It was attended by about 
600 of the 1,200 faculty members eligible to vote. After an hour of heated 
debate, the faculty overwhelmingly approved a resolution presented by 
Dr. Marvin Silver of the Department of Physics and Dr. Gerhard Lenski 
of the Department of Sociology. Some 4,000 students gathered outside 
Hill Hall and cheered the vote on the resolution, which was as follows: 

The students . . . have reacted to the deaths at Kent State and to 
President Nixon's escalation of the war in IndoChina in a mature and 
constructive manner. Without passing judgment on the ultimate 
effectiveness of their strategy, we recognize that this activity consti- 
tutes a reasonable, peaceful and responsible course of action by 
members of our own University family. 

Therefore, in order to give tangible evidence of our support to 
their effort, we reaffirm the freedom of students to be assessed only 



[88] The Consolidated University of North Carolina 

according to their academic performance and the faculty members' 
professional criteria. This includes giving students final grades on 
the basis of work completed thus far this semester or of permitting 
delay in the completion of course requirements. Students are assured 
of the right of appeal in cases of departure from this policy. 

There were protests by students in colleges and universities all over 
North Carolina. At Duke University, where Mr. Terry Sanford had just 
assumed office, and at North Carolina State University and others in 
North Carolina, there were exercises in memory of the students who 
were killed at Kent State. In Chapel Hill 7,000 students attended memo- 
rial rites in Polk Place. 

Governor Scott had endorsed President Nixon's action. About 4,500 
college students from across North Carolina marched on the State Capi- 
tol on 9 May chanting "peace now" and demanding that Governor Bob 
Scott withdraw his support of Nixon's action sending United States troops 
into Cambodia. A colorful group assembled at North Carolina State Uni- 
versity and marched arm-in-arm down Hillsborough Street behind the 
American Flag. A committee of students was received by the governor, 
and when Miss Cathy Sterling, president-elect of the North Carolina 
State student body, read a statement giving the results of their conference, 
there were hisses and shouts of disapproval from dissatisfied students. 
The governor refused to promise not to use National Guard Troops on 
North Carolina campuses if trouble should develop. He refused to accede 
to their demands to condemn Governor James Rhodes of Ohio for send- 
ing the National Guard to Kent State, but he did agree to tell Rhodes of 
the North Carolina students' concern over Kent State when he met him at 
a forthcoming conference. 

Just before the marchers left North Carolina State, they acceded to the 
demands of black students who had announced that they would have 
nothing to do with the march unless it broadened its demands to include 
mention of injustices to blacks. A revised statement of their objective in 
seeing the governor noted that black students had died during law en- 
forcement actions in Orangeburg, South Carolina, and at the A&T cam- 
pus. The latter incident occurred on 21 May 1969 when there was a dis- 
turbance caused by the sponsorship of a high-school student who had not 
been permitted to run for the office of student-council president. When 
the issue came to a crisis, the National Guard was called out by Governor 
Scott at the mayor's request and during the melee Willie Grimes, a student 
at A&T, was shot in the head by a small caliber bullet from an unknown 
gun. This was the only incident that led to a fatality during all of the pe- 
riod of student unrest in North Carolina. 



Student Unrest [89] 

A group of about seventy-five students held an hour-long sit-in at 
South Building on 1 1 May to present a petition against the university's 
disruption policy to Chancellor Sitterson. It was accompanied by a peti- 
tion bearing about 600 signatures of persons admitting to having violated 
the disruption policy and asking the university what it intended to do 
about it. During the sit-in, about 750 students outside listened to several 
professors discuss the war at a teach-in. The students left the chancellor's 
office voluntarily, and President Friday issued a statement later pointing 
out that the normal procedure stipulated by the disruption policy would 
be followed in determining whether there were any violations. Class at- 
tendance at that time was still down about 50 percent as the result of the 
class strike called on Tuesday, 4 May. 

More than 700 students and faculty members from the University of 
North Carolina at Chapel Hill went to Washington in an effort at lobby- 
ing the state's congressional delegation. Bus loads of young people and 
their professors roamed the Capitol and held a two-hour session with Tar 
Heel lawmakers. They were told by Professor John Dixon from the De- 
partment of Religion, "These are my children. They are your children. 
They are the children of your neighbors. Their purpose is a deeply pa- 
triotic faith in the Nation." Senator Everett Jordan told them that he was 
prepared to vote for some attempt to limit moves into Cambodia. With 
this exception, the effort changed few minds in the delegation. Four 
members already opposed the move and the remainder supported Presi- 
dent Nixon. The students did have one effect: they convinced many 
North Carolinians that student dissent over the war was no longer con- 
fined to the radical fringe. 

There was much criticism among citizens of the state of the so-called 
moratorium practice and of the promise of professors to grant amnesty to 
students who did not attend classes. The end of the spring semester came 
during all of the excitement following the Kent State incident. President 
Friday issued several statements to the effect that none of the University 
of North Carolina units would close. Most institutions had attendance 
regulations that permitted instructors to set the attendance rules for each 
class. The number of absences varied greatly from institution to institu- 
tion and from subject to subject. Where the instructors insisted on class 
attendance, they usually obtained enough attendance to enable them to 
assign grades to students. 

At the regular meeting of the Board of Trustees on 25 May 1970, Presi- 
dent Friday gave a detailed account of the student unrest and revealed that 
he, in company with seven other university presidents, had been called to 
the White House to advise the president on the national crisis. He stated 
that there are a "few students who would disregard the law, close down 



[90] The Consolidated University of North Carolina 

institutions, destroy property, provoke violence and threaten human life." 
He also called to their attention the constitutional limits that had been 
imposed by the courts on "summary expulsion of students." He was con- 
vinced that those who would provoke violence were few in number. Then 
he stated, "We must ask ourselves, who are these other thousands of 
young people who have gathered to express themselves in recent weeks 
on our campuses and the campuses of Duke, Wake Forest, East Carolina 
and other institutions?" The answer that they are our own children was 
obvious. President Friday asserted again that the university "is going to 
remain open; that the laws of the State will be enforced; and that the obli- 
gation of any administrator is to do his best to prevent unnecessary direct 
confrontation." With respect to the students who insisted that they had 
violated the disruption policy, he stated that they would have to validate 
the status of each signer to determine whether he is a student, teaching 
assistant, faculty, or staff member. Subsequently, with legal advice, it was 
found impossible to bring action that would be successful against any of 
the signers. 

At the close of the statement, Governor Scott, in contrast to his action a 
year earlier, agreed with President Friday and called attention to the devo- 
tion and diligent efforts of many people "including the Chancellors, 
President Friday and his administrative staff, the faculties and the vigorous 
leadership of the elected student leaders, that the University had not 
closed its doors during this crucial period." The board made provisions 
for printing and giving wide circulation to President Friday's statement. 

When the university resumed classes in the fall of 1970, there were no 
further plans to strike or to disrupt the educational process. Within a 
short time, interest had shifted to other issues and when President Friday 
reported to the Board of Trustees a year later on 28 May 1971, he com- 
mented that "we shared a common concern over the course of disruption 
and unrest manifest on college and university campuses throughout the 
land" one year ago. He stated further, "There has been a perceptible 
change in the student community in America this year. A student leader 
within our University community commented that students had 'ap- 
proached the precipice, viewed the abyss with alarm, and eschewed vio- 
lence and unlawful confrontation.'" 

The disruption policy during this period of unrest was invoked only 
once. David G. Blevins, a part-time instructor in social work, was found 
in violation of the trustees' policy for refusing to teach his once-a-week 
class at the Charlotte campus on 15 October 1969 — the day of the first 
Vietnam War protest. Mr. Blevins was actually employed by the School 
of Social Work at Chapel Hill. The question of his dismissal was moot 
since he had already been notified that his services would not be needed 
for 1970-71. 



Student Unrest [91] 

The disruption policy was not included in the revision of the Code 
adopted by the Board of Governors in 1974 and has joined the visiting- 
speaker policy and regulations in oblivion. 

Throughout the tense period of activism, President Friday sought 
means of bringing equity, fairness, and respect for freedom of expression 
to the campuses. He raised private funds to provide grants that would in- 
crease the enrollment of minority and disadvantaged students at Chapel 
Hill in the period before large federal grants were available. In addition, 
he obtained private funds for symposia and lectures during 1970-71 that 
gave a constructive turn to the tumult, unrest, and excitement that had 
engulfed American campuses in the late 60s. He had sympathy for the 
fresh and direct approach of students and young instructors to social and 
economic changes and managed to protect them from both their own ex- 
cesses and the intolerance of their more fearful elders. However, he made 
it clear that "Anarchy has no place on the campuses of this University." 



CHAPTER 



Expansion and Conflict 



During the deliberations of the Governor's Commission on Education 
Beyond the High School, community colleges located in Charlotte, Ashe- 
ville, and Wilmington asked to be considered for inclusion in the Con- 
solidated University. The inquiry was referred to President Friday who 
placed it before the executive committee of the Board of Trustees on 1 5 
June 1962. It considered the proposal of such great importance that it re- 
ferred the matter to the full Board of Trustees. It also requested its chair- 
man, Governor Sanford, to appoint a committee composed of trustees to 
study the question of the expansion of the university and other matters. 
Governor Sanford appointed a committee of eleven with Mr. Thomas J. 
Pearsall of Rocky Mount as chairman. Some of the work of this commit- 
tee has already been discussed. 

The report of the Governor's Commission on Education Beyond the 
High School included a recommendation that the legislature increase the 
three community colleges mentioned above to four-year college status, 
and it also recommended the enactment of a statute authorizing a proce- 
dure by which the Board of Trustees of the Consolidated University 
might expand to additional campuses. 

Before the legislature could meet, the special committee studied the 
recommendations of the governor's commission and began considering 
the requests of the three community colleges. Members of the committee 
went to Charlotte, Asheville, and Wilmington. They also went to Cali- 
fornia to see how expansion had been accomplished by the University of 
California. A preliminary report on progress was made on 12 November, 
in which it was stated that "the question of expansion to new areas of the 
State is a matter of clear priority." In the final report of the special com- 
mittee to the Board of Trustees on 25 January 1963, a detailed plan for 
future expansion of the university was proposed and it was recommended 
that the legislature enact a statute that would permit the university to 
expand. 

The legislature of 1963 had before it the report of the commission, and 
it was also badgered by the name change issue which has already been 

[92] 



Expansion and Conflict [93] 

mentioned. It did change the three community colleges to four-year in- 
stitutions and enacted legislation that would enable the university to ex- 
pand. Following the adjournment of the legislature, which also enacted 
on the last day of the session the infamous Speaker-Ban Law, the Board of 
Trustees, after discussing the Speaker-Ban Act for the first time on 8 July 
1963, designated Mecklenburg County with its surrounding area as the 
first to be studied under the procedure enacted by the legislature. An Ad- 
visory Council on Educational Policy, composed of the vice presidents, 
the chancellors, and twelve professors selected to provide representation 
from each of the three campuses, was established as a permanent body to 
advise the president on matters of policy that might affect the entire uni- 
versity. This body met on 28 January 1964, studied the statute that pro- 
vided for the expansion of the university, and decided to visit the Meck- 
lenburg County area and the campus of Charlotte College. This visit 
occurred on 12 February. Members of the council and representatives 
from the university administration met with members of the Board of 
Trustees of Charlotte College and many other interested community 
groups. The council inspected the site, buildings and equipment of the 
college. Conferences were held with each academic department and with 
the administrative staff. The library was also inspected. 

President Friday reported on the visit to the executive committee of the 
Board of Trustees on 23 February 1964 and requested that the committee 
pass a formal resolution authorizing a detailed study. On 24 February the 
Board of Trustees of the Consolidated University met in Raleigh and dis- 
cussed the progress of the Mecklenburg County Area Study. At this same 
time, Dr. A. K. King was elected vice president for institutional studies 
and designated as the principal staff officer for making the study. 

A meeting of the Advisory Council on Educational Policy was held on 
1 8 March for the purpose of evaluating the information collected during 
the 12 February visit. The following summarizes some of the conclusions 
that were reached by members of the Council: 

1. An additional campus of the University would become a great 
asset to the State as it grows in population and wealth over the 
next twenty years. Viewed in this perspective, the expansion of 
the University to the Mecklenburg County area would be a logi- 
cal step. 

2. It can be assumed that a large state-supported institution of higher 
learning will develop in the Mecklenburg County area. 

3. A policy decision as to whether the resources that will be allo- 
cated to this institution should be devoted to a campus of the 



[94] The Consolidated University of North Carolina 

University or to a separate institution will have to be made at an 
early date. 

4. The Board of Trustees of Charlotte College and other leading 
citizens of the area have high ambitions for the institution and will 
move as expeditiously as possible to achieve their objective. Their 
present preference is that the college become a campus of the 
University. 

5. Charlotte College is still relatively simple in its academic program 
and administrative organization, and it would not be difficult to 
effect a merger provided that planning toward this end moves 
ahead speedily. 

6. The development of an additional University campus in the area 
should not be accomplished by slowing down the development of 
the existing campuses. 

7. The development of graduate and professional programs on an 
additional campus of the University would have to be preceded by 
the development of an undergraduate program and faculty com- 
parable to those on existing campuses. 

8. The development of a University campus in the Mecklenburg 
County area for commuting students only would not be feasible, 
and eventually residential facilities would have to be provided. 

9. If Charlotte College should become a campus of the University, 
its position in the administrative structure would be identical with 
that of the existing campuses. 

10. Close liaison should be maintained and informal discussions 
should be conducted with trustees and officials of the College 
concerning such matters as faculty, buildings, equipment, site 
planning, land acquisitions, budgets, and other relevant items 
while the study is in progress. 

Dr. King was directed to develop a procedure to follow in carrying on 
the study. 

On 26 March 1964 the formal investigation was initiated. It was even- 
tually summarized in a document entitled A Study of the Need for an Addi- 
tional Campus of The University of North Carolina to be Located at Charlotte 
College. Many visits were made to the campus of Charlotte College and 
to agencies in the Mecklenburg area during the spring and summer. The 
college had already been elevated from community college status to four- 
year college status. It had acquired an excellent campus site eight miles 
from the center of Charlotte and had built a library, a science building, 



Expansion and Conflict [95] 

one unit of an arts building, and the beginning of a student union. The 
most prominent landmark at that time was a pile of stones in the middle 
of the campus that had been the location of a dairy barn. Since that time it 
has been beautifully landscaped and is the site of the present Belk Tower. 
Miss Bonnie Cone was the president of Charlotte College. Many con- 
ferences were held with her and with the late Addison Reese who was 
chairman of the Board of Trustees. The Board of Trustees of Charlotte 
College was eager to negotiate with the Board of Trustees of the Consoli- 
dated University about becoming a fourth campus of the university. Both 
Miss Cone and Mr. Reese were enthusiastic about the idea. They cooper- 
ated fully in the investigation which centered around the following three 
questions: 

1. Is there a need for an additional campus of the University? 

2. Is the Mecklenburg County area an appropriate location for an 
additional campus? 

3. Is Charlotte College a suitable nucleus for a campus of the 
University? 

During the visits, conferences were held with members of the Board 
of Trustees, faculty members, and administrative officials of Charlotte 
College. Close liaison was maintained with Charlotte College on such 
matters as personnel, capital improvements, budget, library, site planning, 
and academic programs. Consultative services were made available to 
evaluate the library, to advise concerning the staffing of several depart- 
ments of the college, to advise on the revision of building plans, and to 
assist with budgetary problems. In addition, all available information 
relating to the history and present condition of Charlotte College was re- 
viewed, including minutes of the Board of Trustees, personnel records of 
the faculty, the college catalogue, student records, building plans, and 
various official documents. 

It was thought in the beginning that a campus of the University at 
Charlotte should appeal chiefly to commuting students drawn from a ra- 
dius of twenty-five miles. As the study progressed, it became clear that an 
institution of university caliber would need to have a broader appeal, and 
the Board of Trustees of the college was so informed. It was also made 
clear to the board that the transfer of authority and responsibility for the 
college from its board to the Board of Trustees of the Consolidated Uni- 
versity would have to be without any reservations. 

The study was completed in October 1964 and reviewed by the Ad- 
visory Council on Educational Policy, which suggested that the informa- 
tion and conclusions in the study should be reported to the Board of 
Trustees of the university. The statistical evidence concerning the pro- 



[96] The Consolidated University of North Carolina 

jccted demand for higher education in North Carolina overwhelmingly 
supported the need for another institution. Enrollment in the three cam- 
puses of the university had doubled in the previous decade, and it was 
estimated that this demand would continue for another decade. 

There was no question about the appropriateness of the Mecklenburg 
County area for the location of an additional campus. It included the 
largest aggregation of population in the state and was a rapidly growing 
metropolitan area that was served by no other public institution except 
Charlotte College. A large college of complex organization would al- 
most inevitably develop there in the next two or three decades. The only 
question was, "Would it develop under the guidance of the University of 
North Carolina or would it develop under its own aegis?" 

With respect to the suitability of Charlotte College as a nucleus for a 
campus of the university, the answer was clear. The college had an enroll- 
ment of 1,512 students, all commuters, in the fall of 1964. Physical facili- 
ties included 897 acres of land, four completed buildings, one building 
under construction, and two more that would soon be under construc- 
tion — all with a total value conservatively estimated at $8,000,000. The 
Charlotte College Foundation had resources of $1,225,000. The operat- 
ing budget for the year was over $1,300,000. The combined A and B 
Budget Requests for the 1965-67 biennium amounted to $4,382,000 
and the capital improvements requested amounted to $8,945,000. The li- 
brary was well planned; however, it was in need of additions to the 40,000 
volumes. It was increasing at the rate of 1,000 a month. Undergraduate 
degrees were offered in eleven fields and the first class, which included 
sixty-one seniors, was scheduled to graduate in June 1965. The full- 
time faculty included thirteen professors, fourteen associate professors, 
twenty-five assistant professors, and twenty instructors for a total of 
seventy-two of whom forty-four percent held doctoral degrees. There 
was still much to be done but with its sound assets, it was estimated that 
it could be incorporated into the university with few disruptions. It was 
therefore recommended "that the Board of Trustees of the University, 
subject to the provisions of General Statute 116-2.1, take appropriate ac- 
tion to make Charlotte College the fourth campus of The University of 
North Carolina." After a lively debate in which one member of the Board 
of Trustees spoke in opposition on the ground that the university should 
not "expand and acquire quantity and lose quality," the following resolu- 
tion was adopted: 

now, therefore, be it resolved by the Board of Trustees of The 
University of North Carolina: 

1. that subject to: 



Expansion and Conflict [97] 

a. the approval of the North Carolina Board of Higher Education, 

b. the approval and provision of adequate financial support for the 
proposed campus by the General Assembly, 

c. the enactment by the General Assembly of necessary legislation 
repealing the provisions of Article 2, Chapter 116, of the Gen- 
eral Statutes of North Carolina pertaining to Charlotte College, 

d. the enactment of such additional legislation and the performance 
of such other official acts by the Board of Trustees of Charlotte 
College and other appropriate authorities as may be necessary to 
transfer the property of Charlotte College to the proposed cam- 
pus, and 

e. the application to the proposed campus of standards and criteria 
now prescribed by the Board of Trustees for the existing cam- 
puses of the University. 

An additional campus of The University is hereby established by 
incorporating and merging Charlotte College into The University 
of North Carolina, effective July 1, 1965. 

2. The former Charlotte College shall thenceforth be designated "The 
University of North Carolina at Charlotte." 

The study and the resolution were sent on to the State Board of Higher 
Education for its approval. The state board unanimously adopted a reso- 
lution that stated that making the Charlotte College the fourth campus of 
the Consolidated University would help meet "the demonstrated need to 
provide university-level education in the densely populated and expand- 
ing Southern Piedmont area of North Carolina." 

The proposal then went to the state legislature where it was referred to 
the Higher Education Committee of the House. It experienced a little op- 
position in the House; however, when it reached the Senate, there was 
lively opposition on the part of some powerful members of that body, 
among them a chairman of the board of one of the state colleges. The bill 
weathered the storm and became the law of the land on 3 March 1965. 

Some of the state colleges believed that the addition of a fourth campus 
to the Consolidated University would give the university too much 
power. They felt that it would detract from their expansion, would inter- 
fere with their ambitions to become graduate institutions, and would si- 
phon off support that might have gone to them. They resented the action 
of the Board of Higher Education in supporting the Board of Trustees of 
the university. This resentment together with other factors, some of 
which were political, led to an effort to abolish the Board of Higher Edu- 



[98] The Consolidated University of North Carolina 

cation. The board survived by a narrow margin, but it was restructured in 
such a way that most of its members lost their positions. New ones who 
were more closely allied — with one exception — to the administration of 
the new governor were appointed. Nine of the members were appointed 
by the governor and five were elected by boards of trustees of state in- 
stitutions. The Consolidated University had two permanent members 
and the other three were to rotate among the state colleges. Mr. Watts 
Hill, Jr., was appointed chairman of the board. Dr. William Archie, di- 
rector of the board, resigned. At a later date it was often argued that the 
actions of the 1967 and 1969 legislatures in giving all state colleges not in 
the Consolidated University regional university status with broad au- 
thority to offer graduate work, eventually to the doctoral level, grew out 
of the expansion of the university. 

The bill changing the designation of Charlotte College to the Univer- 
sity of North Carolina at Charlotte became effective 1 July 1965. The ex- 
ercises for the first and last graduating class of Charlotte College were 
held in a room in the library in early June. President Friday was there and 
most of the members of his staff. The college Board of Trustees was there 
in a body. There were many tributes paid to those who had established 
Charlotte College, especially to Miss Bonnie Cone, the president of the 
institution. Chairman Reese and President Friday made some remarks. 
Shortly thereafter, on 1 July, there was a second ceremony. Present for 
that occasion were most of the members of the executive committee of 
the Board of Trustees of the university, all of the members of the Board of 
Trustees of Charlotte College, all of President Friday's staff, and some 
representatives of the faculties of the other three institutions. The three 
chancellors of the other institutions were also present. Governor Moore 
made the transfer of all properties held by the Board of Trustees of 
Charlotte College to the Board of Trustees of the University of North 
Carolina. 

President Friday had announced earlier that he had asked President 
Bonnie Cone to assume the duties of acting chancellor the moment she 
relinquished the duties of president. He and others expressed the deep 
debt of gratitude owed to her by the university, the Charlotte community, 
and the University of North Carolina at Charlotte for the gracious way in 
which she conducted the affairs of the institution in the interim following 
the transfer. 

The Board of Trustees of the university designated a search committee 
to look for a chancellor. They were directed to make a national search. 
The chairman of the committee was the late Thomas Leath from Rocking- 
ham in Richmond County. Other members of the committee were Mr. 
Irwin Belk, Mrs. Elise Wilson, Mr. Henry Foscue, and Mr. Thomas 
McKnight. Notice was sent out that a chancellor was being sought. Many 



Expansion and Conflict [99] 

names were received, but there was one that stood out among all the 
others: President Dean Colvard of Mississippi State University. Many 
people thought Dr. Colvard could not be moved from the presidency of a 
major land-grant college to a struggling little institution that had just 
achieved university status. The committee, as it proceeded in its delibera- 
tions, came to the conclusion that if the university at Charlotte was to 
achieve true university status, it would have to have an experienced uni- 
versity president. It was essential, they felt, that the president have na- 
tional credentials and be able to attract faculty of university status; that he 
be able to go to Raleigh and make his influence felt among the state offi- 
cials; and especially that he be able to sit in the counsel of the chancellors 
of the university and carry as much weight as the chancellors of the three 
older campuses. 

President Colvard, who was a native of North Carolina and a former 
Dean of the School of Agriculture at North Carolina State, fulfilled the 
criteria that the committee had in mind. His name was submitted to the 
Board of Trustees, and it was left to President Friday to convince him that 
here was an opportunity to do a unique and creative job in North Caro- 
lina that would come to very few people. The president was a good sales- 
man, and Dr. Colvard accepted the position. 

A special meeting of the Board of Trustees was called for 28 January 
1966 in Raleigh to act on President Friday's recommendation of Dr. 
Colvard for the chancellorship. When the meeting assembled in the hall 
of the House of Representatives, it did not have the required quorum of 
fifty-one members because of a severe ice storm that made travel danger- 
ous. The highway patrol was sent out to bring in enough members to 
constitute the required quorum. About 2:00 p.m. one patrolman arrived 
with the late Reid Maynard from Burlington. One more vote was needed 
and ex-Governor Sanford, who was eligible to vote, was asked to come to 
the rescue of the board. When he arrived, the report of the Leath Com- 
mittee was presented stressing the great service that Miss Bonnie Cone 
had rendered to the institution and the reasons the committee sought a 
distinguished person with a national reputation and successful experience 
as a college president. President Friday summarized Dr. Colvard's back- 
ground as a native of North Carolina with an undergraduate degree from 
Berea College and graduate degrees from the University of Missouri and 
Purdue where he received a Ph.D. in 1950. He mentioned Dr. Colvard's 
long connection with North Carolina State University, his service in the 
work of many national educational organizations and learned societies, 
and the successful administration of his presidency at Mississippi State 
University, which had experienced phenomenal growth during the six 
years of his tenure. 

Before Dr. and Mrs. Colvard were presented to the board, tribute was 



[ioo] The Consolidated University of North Carolina 

paid to Miss Cone and it was announced that she was considering an in- 
vitation to join the administrative staff of the University at Charlotte as a 
vice chancellor. 

Chancellor Colvard and Mrs. Colvard appeared. He made a short, 
concise statement that was received graciously by the board members, 
who were anxious to adjourn because of the inclement weather. 

The University of North Carolina at Charlotte was launched on a mis- 
sion that has resulted in its becoming one of the most successful new 
urban universities of this generation; however, it also was one of the prin- 
cipal factors in precipitating the controversy that wracked higher edu- 
cation in North Carolina for the next five years and led ultimately to 
the restructuring of public senior higher education under the Board of 
Governors. 

A harbinger of the future was received by the Board of Higher Educa- 
tion and the General Assembly on 10 February 1965, when East Carolina 
College under the leadership of President Leo Jenkins and Chairman of 
the Board Robert Morgan requested that the institution be authorized to 
establish a two-year medical school. This was almost a month before the 
General Assembly approved the admission of Charlotte College to the 
Consolidated University. Obviously the leaders of East Carolina College 
who considered the Charlotte College bill a threat to their plans were 
staking out a claim for future expansion. This issue was a divisive subject 
for the next decade. The legislature, with little study and without asking 
the advice of the Board of Higher Education, authorized the two-year 
School of Medicine "contingent upon the development of a program 
which would 'meet the accreditation standards of the Council of Medical 
Education and the Association of Medical Schools and Colleges.'" It was 
stipulated that if this condition had not been met by 1 July 1967, and ac- 
creditation granted, the Board of Higher Education would be responsible 
for studying any further requests. They failed to get accreditation, and 
the issue did not become active again until 1969. 

In the meantime, on 9 June 1965 the Western Carolina College Board of 
Trustees authorized the appointment of a faculty committee to study 
among other things "the general future course the institution should fol- 
low." It recommended that the Board of Trustees take steps toward the 
elevation of Western Carolina College "to the status of an autonomous 
regional university." On 8 December 1966 this became the official posi- 
tion of its board. Appalachian State Teachers College acted in the fall of 
1966 and on 26 January 1967 transmitted to the Board of Higher Educa- 
tion a resolution requesting that the State Board of Higher Education 
"consider expanding Appalachian State Teachers College into a university 
either within or without the present Consolidated University of North 
Carolina." 



Expansion and Conflict [ I0T ] 

The Board of Trustees of East Carolina College on 18 May 1966 
adopted a resolution which requested "that the North Carolina Board of 
Higher Education study the desirability of elevating East Carolina Col- 
lege to independent university status and that a report of the results of 
this study be made available before the convening of the 1967 North 
Carolina General Assembly." An elaborate study was made by the Board 
of Higher Education with the assistance of an outside panel of nine con- 
sultants headed by Dr. Robert W. MacVicar, vice president for academic 
affairs, Southern Illinois University, as chairman. The board reported on 
15 March 1967, that "there be no fundamental change in the structure of 
the existing system of higher education in North Carolina at this time." It 
was further suggested that any need for changes in structure be included 
in the Long Range Planning Study of the board, which was scheduled 
for completion in August 1968. The need for strengthening the existing 
master's degree programs with reference to faculty, students, curriculum, 
library resources, and research, as recommended by the consultants, was 
pointed out. 

It was evident from these actions on the part of the three colleges that 
it would be difficult to postpone political action and, contrary to the ad- 
vice of the Board of Higher Education, the legislature of 1967 designated 
East Carolina College, Western Carolina College, Appalachian State Col- 
lege, and North Carolina Agricultural and Technical College regional 
universities. 

Asheville-Biltmore and Wilmington Colleges did not lose interest in 
becoming campuses of the Consolidated University when their requests 
were postponed nor did they stand still. Each became a four-year senior 
college by action of the General Assembly of 1963 and proceeded with 
the financial support of the state to develop attractive new campuses. 
Both were recognized as fully accredited senior colleges by the Southern 
Association of Colleges and Schools at the earliest possible date after 
graduating their first classes. From time to time, they raised the question 
of becoming campuses of the university. In 1968 the Board of Trustees 
consulted President Friday before appointing Dr. William H. Wagoner 
president of Wilmington College. Early in 1968, Governor Moore, chair- 
man of the Board of Trustees, appointed a special committee of seven 
members with Mr. J. A. Prevost as chairman to explore the possibility of 
some affiliation or relationship between the colleges and the university 
and to recommend whether a formal study should be authorized. Both 
campuses were visited by the special committee and it recommended to 
the Board of Trustees on 27 May 1968, that a study be made. The special 
committee was designated to conduct it. President Friday named Vice 
President A. K. King as the staff member to assist with the study. 

Approximately the same procedure was followed in this study as had 



[102] The Consolidated University of North Carolina 

guided the Charlotte College study. It continued through the summer 
and was completed on 10 October 1968 and circulated among the Board 
of Trustees. On 7 December 1968 the Board of Trustees of the Univer- 
sity of North Carolina received and made public the report of the Prevost 
Committee and adopted resolutions "to make Asheville-Biltmore Col- 
lege and Wilmington College campuses of The University of North 
Carolina" and to designate them, respectively, the University of North 
Carolina at Asheville and the University of North Carolina at Wilming- 
ton. The committee report stated that the information presented in the 
report pointed to the following conclusions: 

1 . Sufficient facilities for advanced graduate and professional pro- 
grams either are provided on existing campuses of the University 
or are scheduled to be activated during the next decade. 

2. There is a serious shortage of graduates of superior undergraduate 
institutions in North Carolina. A solution to this problem would 
be facilitated by the proposed merger of the University with the 
undergraduate colleges located in the major growth areas of Ashe- 
ville and Wilmington. Such a merger would extend the resources 
of the University to cities in which there is a long-range potential 
for developing campuses that would be attractive to students from 
all parts of the State. These campuses would appeal to students 
who prefer institutions of moderate size and with a less traditional 
and more experimental approach to undergraduate education. The 
experience and resources of the University could be devoted to de- 
veloping superior programs in the liberal arts and sciences on the 
new campuses. Furthermore, they would provide centers for carry- 
ing on the many services and interinstitutional cooperative pro- 
grams of the University that currently are not available to these 
areas of the State. 

3. Information concerning the economic, social, educational, and cul- 
tural resources of the Asheville metropolitan area and its surround- 
ing hinterland indicates that it needs better higher education facili- 
ties and that it would be an appropriate place to locate a campus of 
the University. 

4. Similar information concerning the needs and services available in 
the Wilmington metropolitan area indicates that it needs better 
higher education facilities and that it would likewise be an appro- 
priate area in which to locate a University campus. 

5. Asheville-Biltmore College would be a satisfactory nucleus around 
which to organize an undergraduate campus of the University, and 



Expansion and Conflict [ I0 3] 

it would contribute valuable resources to the development of a su- 
perior undergraduate University campus in the years ahead. Its lo- 
cation and physical facilities are well-suited to this purpose. The 
institution has no strong traditions or long-standing practices that 
would make a merger difficult. 

6. Wilmington College would be a satisfactory nucleus around which 
"to organize an undergraduate campus of the University, and it 
would contribute many sound assets to the undertaking. The loca- 
tion and physical facilities are well-suited to this purpose. Since it 
is also a young institution without strong traditions and long- 
standing practices, the goal of establishing a superior under- 
graduate college within the framework of the University could be 
achieved in a reasonably short period of time. 

In the course of the study and the deliberations of the committee there 
was much discussion concerning the names that would be given to the 
two and the functions that would be assigned to them. Some members of 
the committee thought that they should be called colleges of the Univer- 
sity of North Carolina. Others opposed any designation that might indi- 
cate that they were not full partners with the other four campuses. When 
the action of the board was referred to the Board of Higher Education for 
its recommendation, it was made clear that their primary role would be 
that of undergraduate colleges and that the Board of Trustees of the uni- 
versity did not intend to make them research universities for granting ad- 
vanced degrees. 

The Board of Higher Education appointed a committee to study the 
report and make recommendations to the 1969 session of the legislature. 
The committee was constituted on 13 December 1968 and was headed by 
Mr. J. P. Huskins of Statesville. It made a recommendation to the Board 
of Higher Education on 7 March 1969. It pointed out that the board had 
recently completed a major study of higher education in North Carolina, 
which had been participated in by all of the colleges and universities and 
that no mention of further expansion of the University of North Carolina 
was made during the course of the study. By the time the study was com- 
pleted, a new Governor, Robert W. Scott, had taken office, and it was 
becoming obvious that he was eager to join the fray that was emerging in 
higher education in North Carolina. 

The study of the Board of Higher Education argued both sides of the 
question making the two institutions campuses of the university with 
ambivalent logic. The real purpose of their study appeared to be that of 
advocating the need for a plan of organization for higher education in the 
state. The board suggested three alternatives: one, strengthening the 
Board of Higher Education; two, abolishing it and substituting a new 



f 104] The Consolidated University of North Carolina 

board; and, three, bringing all of the institutions under the Consolidated 
University. It did call on the other institutions outside of the university to 
give their opinions on the recommendation for expansion. President Alex 
Pow of Western Carolina College delivered an acerbic statement in op- 
position to the proposition and suggested that Asheville-Biltmore Col- 
lege be merged with Western Carolina College, or, if that were infeasible, 
that they have a close affiliation. Appalachian, under the leadership of 
President Plemmons, gave a dignified but firm objection to the proposal. 
It was favored by the School of the Arts, and Pembroke State College also 
endorsed the proposal. No other institutions responded to the request. In 
the end, the Board of Higher Education approved the establishment of 
the two additional campuses of the University of North Carolina, and it 
made several conditional recommendations: one, that they be primarily 
undergraduate institutions; two, that each of the campuses "be encour- 
aged in the pursuit of academic excellence through innovation and experi- 
mentation"; and, three, that their role and scope be restudied in 1975. The 
report also insisted that the General Assembly "at an appropriate time, 
consider the need, made more urgent by this action, to create a Statewide 
agency with clearly defined authority to plan and coordinate higher 
education." 

Changes in the status of colleges were coming so fast and recklessly 
that there was little oppostion to the expansion in the General Assembly. 
The admission of Wilmington and Asheville-Biltmore campuses to the 
university was approved on 24 April, and they became the fifth and sixth 
campuses of the university on 1 July 1969. 

President William E. Highsmith became chancellor of the University 
of North Carolina at Asheville when it entered the university. He was a 
native of Texas and attended Phillips University, the University of Texas, 
and Southeastern University. He received his Ph.D. in History from 
Louisiana State University. During World War II he served in the United 
States Army Air Forces. Dr. Highsmith had been a member of the fac- 
ulties of the University of Arkansas, Louisiana State University, and the 
University of Alabama. Before coming to Asheville-Biltmore College as 
its president in 1962, he was dean of the faculty at Jacksonville University. 
When Asheville-Biltmore College became a four-year institution, it re- 
ceived a special mandate from the Board of Higher Education to develop 
a small liberal arts institution of superior quality. President Pow of West- 
ern Carolina University was very much opposed to any development in 
Asheville that might compete with extension programs that his institu- 
tion was operating from a center that had been established in a building 
on the grounds of Oteen Hospital. Dr. Highsmith carried out the plan to 
establish a liberal arts institution and collected around him a small, well- 



Expansion and Conflict l l0 S] 

qualified faculty. They attracted a modest enrollment of better-than- 
average students from Buncombe and surrounding counties. It soon be- 
came evident that the university at Asheville would have to make an effort 
to meet the needs of the community in which it was located. This would 
conflict with the original purpose of the institution and with the desires 
of the faculty who served the institution. Dr. Highsmith found it ex- 
tremely difficult to reverse the tide and add other purposes and functions 
to his mission. Competition between Asheville and Western Carolina be- 
came a source of irritation and impeded the development of Asheville for 
a number of years. 

President William H. Wagoner of Wilmington College assumed the 
chancellorship of that institution on i July 1969. He was a native of Wash- 
ington, North Carolina, and received A.B. and M. A. degrees from Wake 
Forest College and the Ph.D. in educational administration with a minor 
in political science from the university at Chapel Hill. He had served in 
the United States Navy during World War II and had come up through the 
public schools as a teacher, principal, and superintendent. At the time of 
his election to the presidency of Wilmington College in 1968, he was su- 
perintendent of Wilmington-New Hanover County public schools. His 
predecessor, President William Madison Randall, a linguistics scholar, 
had planned carefully for the future development of the institution, and 
Chancellor Wagoner was not handicapped by any preconceived idea as to 
the function of the institution. It developed rapidly and was soon on the 
way to becoming a comprehensive-type university. 

The News and Observer of 15 December 1968 remarked, "Like an ice- 
berg, the plan to convert Asheville-Biltmore College and Wilmington 
College into the fifth and sixth campuses of the Consolidated University 
of North Carolina shows above the surface only a sample of what lies be- 
neath." This description was borne out by the action of the 1969 session 
of the General Assembly. "With a minimum of controversy and a maxi- 
mum of speed," the General Assembly, which ignored the recommenda- 
tions of the Board of Higher Education, completely changed the scope of 
higher education. The five remaining public colleges were all designated 
regional universities. The Consolidated University was expanded to in- 
clude six institutions. The nine regional universities were given the au- 
thority to seek permission to offer doctoral programs from the Board of 
Higher Education after 1972. The Board of Higher Education itself was 
reorganized to include six powerful chairmen of legislative committees 
with the governor as chairman. 

In previous sessions of the General Assembly there had been spirited 
debate over higher education, but in the 1969 session debate was at a 
minimum. It was reported in the press that one senator, when asked how 



[io6] The Consolidated University of North Carolina 

he intended to vote, stated, "I'm going to vote to make Elizabeth City 
State, Fayetteville State and Winston-Salem State Colleges into regional 
universities. Then things will be in such a mess we will have to do some- 
thing to remedy the situation." In addition to these three institutions, 
Pembroke State and North Carolina Central College were also added to 
the list of regional universities. The 1963 allocation of doctoral programs 
to the Consolidated University no longer gave its institutions a monop- 
oly. With East Carolina University leading the way under President Leo 
Jenkins, they had all won the right to seek doctoral programs after 1972. 
A wag designated the regional institutions along with those recently 
added to the Consolidated University, "instant universities." 

Another startling development, a medical school for East Carolina 
University, also made its way through the General Assembly without 
much consideration. Previous sessions had held heated debates on this 
issue; however, East Carolina University received $375,000 to develop a 
curriculum and plan for a two-year medical school with little debate. The 
Board of Higher Education had reservations about two-year medical 
schools and had recommended that resources be concentrated on the 
medical school at Chapel Hill, at least until 1975. 

The Board of Higher Education did gain one advantage. It was re- 
ported that the director of the board, Dr. Cameron West, encouraged 
Governor Robert Scott to seek the chairmanship of the board to give it at 
least a counterweight to the Board of Trustees of the Consolidated Uni- 
versity. It was not long before this change began to bear fruit. 

East Carolina Univeristy proceeded to plan for a-two-year medical 
school as was authorized by the General Assembly of 1969, and on 
23 September 1970 it applied to the Board of Higher Education for ap- 
proval of a two-year program leading to the degree of Master of Medical 
Science. The board requested its Educational Program Committee to 
study the East Carolina proposal and, when it became available, a report 
of the Liaison Committee of the American Medical Association and the 
Association of American Medical Colleges concerning the evaluation by 
that committee of East Carolina's readiness for provisional accreditation 
to undertake a two-year program. 

The report of the Liaison Committee was received in February 1971 
and the basic recommendation was as follows: "... after examining all 
the available evidence, including the report of its survey team on the visit 
of October 11- 13, 1970 and reports of earlier consultations, [the com- 
mittee] is of the opinion that the state of development of the medical edu- 
cation program of East Carolina University does not justify provisional 
accreditation to accept an entering class of 197 1." 

This Liaison Committee made some favorable comments on the educa- 



Expansion and Conflict [ I0 7] 

tional program of East Carolina University and others that were less 
favorable. It pointed out especially the need to have definite arrangements 
for the transfer of graduates of its proposed program to a four-year medi- 
cal school. 

The Board of Higher Education made numerous recommendations re- 
garding the most effective way of expanding medical education in North 
Carolina and meeting the urgent need for additional physicians. Among 
the recommendations was the suggestion that the 1971 General Assembly 
appropriate funds for planning and initiating a program of first-year 
medical education at East Carolina University during the next biennium 
in cooperation with the School of Medicine of the University of North 
Carolina. This bizarre scheme pleased neither East Carolina nor the 
medical school at Chapel Hill. It was difficult to understand why a one- 
year program would be any more logical or effective than a two-year pro- 
gram. The board gave the somewhat lame explanation that "the present 
facilities at East Carolina University are adequate for a one-year medical 
educational program." It was suggested that the program could operate as 
part of the School of Allied Health Science that had resulted as a sort of 
consolation prize when East Carolina made its first drive for a medical 
school. The result of this recommendation will be discussed in greater 
detail when the controversy over the medical school is treated hereafter. 

It is evident from the discussion of the haphazard changes that occured 
in higher education in North Carolina after 1965 that the issue of how to 
organize higher education was moving toward some kind of denouement 
that would alter the consolidation structure that had been adopted in 193 1 
and redefined in 1963. North Carolina at this juncture had the Consoli- 
dated University with six campuses, two of which had emerged as major 
research universities with the one at Chapel Hill highly acclaimed on a 
national basis. There were nine regional universities, five of which were 
predominantly and historically black institutions and four predominantly 
white institutions, one of which had its roots in the traditions of the 
Lumbee Indians. In addition to these fifteen institutions, there was a con- 
servatory-type institution at Winston-Salem, the North Carolina School 
of the Arts, which had been established during the Sanford administra- 
tion under controversial circumstances. All of the institutions that did not 
offer the doctorate, except the School of the Arts, had vague yearnings to 
give that degree. East Carolina was making a determined drive with the 
support of the Eastern political establishment to organize a four-year 
medical school. Most of the nine institutions outside of the Consolidated 
University had evolved from normal schools to teachers' colleges and 
were blossoming into general-purpose institutions. All of the institutions 
had experienced growing pains over the previous twenty years, stimu- 



[io8] The Consolidated University of North Carolina 

latcd first by the G.I. Bill and driven furiously in the 1960s by the great 
increase in the birthrate following World War II. 

These institutions all had their political constituencies and, with the 
exception of the Consolidated University, which represented six institu- 
tions, they all went to the legislature for the support that was necessary 
for their existence. They had rival and competing objectives. They looked 
upon the Consolidated University as the favored institution, which re- 
ceived special treatment from the legislature. 

In 1955 the Board of Higher Education was authorized by the legis- 
lature with the hope and expectation that it could bring some order into 
what then was beginning to appear as the competing ambitions of these 
institutions. The board proved no match in its infancy for the Board of 
Trustees of the Consolidated University and experienced difficulty in 
avoiding being abolished. Its powers were diminished, and it made a sec- 
ond attempt. This time it was overshadowed by the work of the Carlyle 
Commission, which greatly strengthened the legal position of the Consol- 
idated University. It also proved ineffective in dealing with the speaker- 
ban issue. Under political pressure, it was reorganized and given a new 
membership and new leadership. This time the Board of Higher Educa- 
tion received sufficient support from the legislature to employ staff and 
begin the process of long range planning; however, before it could com- 
plete the planning process, the expansion of the Consolidated University 
and the ambitions of East Carolina University had provided the fuel 
for legislative interference, without regard to the plans or advice of the 
Board of Higher Education, that led to the chaos of 1969. Once again, 
the Board of Higher Education tried to attain the prestige and authority 
essential for bringing order out of chaos. The legislature added six new 
members to the board, all of whom were heads of powerful legislative 
committees, and also made the governor chairman of the board. By this 
time it was agreed by both friends and foes of the various institutions that 
something would have to be done. 

Before going into the great political battle over restructuring, there are 
a few other developments that need to be reviewed in order to appreciate 
the significant contributions of the Consolidated University, many of 
which later came to be embodied in the restructured university. 

During the period 1956 to 1971, enrollment in the Consolidated Uni- 
versity increased about 320 percent from 14,800 to 47,339. The university 
at Chapel Hill increased from 6,971 to 19, 160 and enrollment in the Divi- 
sion of Health Affairs more than doubled. North Carolina State Univer- 
sity grew from 5,505 to 13,483. Its growth was particularly rapid in the 
eight-year period following the change in scope and function that was as- 
signed to the institution in 1963. The university at Greensboro increased 



Expansion and Conflict [ J 09] 

from 2,324 to 6,983. Almost half of this increase occurred after the change 
to university status in 1963. Greensboro was still predominantly a women's 
institution since it enrolled only 1,700 men and many of these were part- 
time students who enrolled for graduate courses in teacher education. 
The newer institutions — Asheville, Charlotte and Wilmington — had a 
combined enrollment about equal to that of the university at Greensboro. 
Not only did the university expand in enrollment, but it experienced a 
phenomenal growth in its curriculum. In 1968 programs of instruction at 
the bachelor's level were offered in 1 1 1 fields, at the master's in 1 15 fields, 
and at the doctoral in 82 fields. Many of these were in new fields related 
to the health professions. Others were in such recently developed areas as 
nuclear science, computer science, and newly developed areas of biology 
and the physical sciences. Virtually every academic field offered by Ameri- 
can universities with the exception of theology was represented in the 
curriculum of one or more of the constituent institutions. North Carolina 
State University took advantage of the change in its status in 1963 to add 
many subjects in the liberal arts with some at the master's level. It also 
experienced a rapid expansion of Ph.D. programs in the fields of science, 
mathematics, and engineering. There was some criticism of the rapid 
growth of enrollment and degree programs in the liberal arts at North 
Carolina State. 

There was also a tremendous increase in the faculties of the constituent 
institutions of the Consolidated University. For example, in the fall of 
1957, the combined total full-time faculty of the Division of Health Af- 
fairs and the Division of Academic Affairs at Chapel Hill was 668. By the 
fall of 1 97 1, this figure had increased to 1,814. Comparable growth in fac- 
ulty occurred throughout the Consolidated University. 

The increase in state-appropriated funds for the academic programs in 
the Consolidated University was even more dramatic. In 1955-56, the 
total General Fund appropriations for current operations of the Consoli- 
dated University for all purposes amounted to $14,839,848. The compa- 
rable figure for 1966-67 was $48,171,724. By 1970-71, this figure ex- 
ceeded $84,000,000. 



CHAPTER 



The Battle over Restructuring 



The five years that followed the report of the Committee of Senior Fac- 
ulty Members were eventful ones for the Consolidated University. Its 
offices were moved into a new headquarters building on Raleigh Road in 
Chapel Hill about a mile from the campus, on 13 May 1971. The three 
new campuses at Charlotte, Wilmington, and Asheville were brought 
fully into the organization of the university. A major long-range planning 
study was made in cooperation with the Board of Higher Education. 
Many new problems arose, generated by rapid expansion, and on the na- 
tional as well as the state level, the university gave leadership in helping to 
shape a new era in higher education. 

During this period President Friday served on numerous national edu- 
cational boards and commissions. He was a member of the Carnegie 
Commission on the Future of Higher Education. He served on the Presi- 
dent's Task Force on Education in 1966-67 and as chairman of the Execu- 
tive Committee of the President's Commission on White House Fellows 
from 1965-68. In November 1970 he was elected chairman of the Board 
of Trustees of the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 
and in May 1971, he became president of the Association of American 
Universities, which was made up of the top forty-eight institutions of 
higher learning in the United States and Canada. He also was at one time 
vice-chairman of the Southern Regional Education Board, and he served 
as chairman of the Board of Directors of the American Council on Edu- 
cation. At the time when higher education in North Carolina was heading 
into a crisis, the Consolidated University was fortunate to have at its head 
one of the most highly respected university presidents in the nation. 

When Governor Robert W. Scott assumed office in January 1969, he 
had already had experience as lieutenant governor since January 1965. 
During this period there had been many legislative changes in higher 
education including the change in the status of four regional universities, 
the East Carolina Medical School, the restructuring of the Board of 
Higher Education at the beginning of the Moore administration, and the 
extension of permission to the four new regional universities to offer the 

[no] 



The Battle over Restructuring [m] 

doctoral degree after 1972. Lt. Gov. Scott is not on record as having ob- 
jected to any of these changes. During his first year in office, the remain- 
ing five state colleges were given regional university status with the right 
to apply to offer the doctorate after 1972. He was not on record as oppos- 
ing this final legislative excess that threw further confusion into the ranks 
of higher education. During Governor Scott's first legislative session, he 
had himself made chairman of the Board of Higher Education and was 
instrumental in adding six powerful committee chairmen from the House 
and the Senate to the board. 

According to the governor's statement to the Board of Trustees of the 
Consolidated University on 22 February 1971, his assumption of the chair- 
manship of the Board of Higher Education "was the best move the Legis- 
lature made for higher education in the last session. Had this not occurred 
and thus enabled me to attend the Board of Higher Education meetings, 
there would have been no way for me, as Governor, to understand the 
intricacies of higher education in North Carolina. There would have been 
no way for me to have a competent overview of the total educational pic- 
ture. There would have been no way for me to see what a mess we are in. " 
There was wide agreement that higher education, due to the actions of 
the legislature over the past five years, had resulted in — as the governor 
called it — "a mess." In the election of 1970, the people of North Carolina 
had ratified a revision of the state constitution. It authorized some reorga- 
nization in state government that had to be completed by 1972. Governor 
Scott came to the conclusion that higher education needed restructuring 
and it was his hope that the leaders of Boards of Trustees and the Board of 
Higher Education would call for change. It was reported by the Charlotte 
Observer that Governor Scott, who was a strong backer of streamlined 
state government, faced the opposition of higher education leaders over a 
proposed amendment to limit the number of state agencies to twenty- 
five. These leaders were afraid that this would force the reorganization of 
higher education under a single system. Faced with this opposition, Gov- 
ernor Scott had promised not to propose such a reorganization. 

The state was suddenly aroused when it learned that the governor on 
Sunday afternoon, 13 December 1970, had called together at the gover- 
nor's mansion representatives of the Board of Higher Education and 
boards of trustees of all state-supported higher education institutions. 
About forty people attended the meeting. According to the News and Ob- 
server of 16 December, "those invited to the meeting were notified by 
telephone late Friday afternoon." Scott discussed problems in higher edu- 
cation and although he had no specific proposal in mind, he suggested the 
possibility of an overall state board which would govern the sixteen se- 
nior institutions. According to a confidential transcript that was made of 



[ii2] The Consolidated University of North Carolina 

the meeting, Governor Scott opened with the statement: "This afternoon 
we will have one of the most important discussions on higher education 
to occur in this State in a long time. I have invited the Executive Com- 
mittee of The University of North Carolina Board of Trustees, at least 
two representatives from the Trustees of each of the Regional Universities 
and members of the Board of Higher Education. No administrators are 
present. This is the business of trustees primarily." 

He mentioned the many new factors in higher education, among them 
the regional universities, the community college system, the needs of pri- 
vate higher education, the expansion of the Consolidated University, the 
School of the Arts, and two governing boards — the Board of Higher 
Education and the trustees of the Consolidated University. In the course 
of his remarks, he mentioned the following alternatives: (i) do nothing; 
(2) absorb all institutions into the University of North Carolina; (3) fur- 
ther strengthen the Board of Higher Education; and (4): "we could create 
a new structure from the best of the Consolidated University and the 
Board of Higher Education. I don't mean something new above both of 
them, a super board. I don't mean another tier. I am talking about starting 
all over. Scrambling a new batch of eggs. Do away with the Board of 
Higher Education and the Consolidated University and create something 
new." He said that he was not going to the legislature and recommend a 
plan for the reorganization of higher education. He wanted their ideas 
and he speculated at some length on his own ideas. He mentioned that the 
University of North Carolina was a constitutional requirement. "So we 
might try the 'University of North Carolina System' to get around that 
requirement — to comply with that requirement." 

Governor Scott stated: "It has taken me this long to really learn where 
we are at. Serving as Chairman of the Board of Higher Education and the 
UNC Board has enabled me to see both sides. I think this was good and I 
needed the overview which both jobs have given me. ... I am asking 
you to consider the alternatives and I have suggested one which seems to 
me to be the way to go. There will be much screaming, wailing and 
gnashing of teeth. I don't want this anymore than you do but I won't back 
down. . . . Now I would like to hear some discussion and some ques- 
tions." The reaction of those at the meeting was mixed although all 
agreed that there were problems. Mr. Victor Bryant made a long state- 
ment which is difficult to interpret. At the end of the statement he made 
the remark, "and then a dedicated subcommittee could be appointed to de- 
velop further thinking for the Governor and the General Assembly." This 
was what the governor had been listening for; and he asked Mr. Bryant 
to put his suggestion as a motion, and it was seconded. Eventually the 
motion passed and the governor had what he wanted — a suggestion from 



The Battle over Restructuring [n3] 

a member of the executive committee of the Board of Trustees of the 
Consolidated University that would give him an opportunity to get a 
committee to consider his alternatives. 

There was widespread editorial comment on the 13 December meet- 
ing. Some papers praised Governor Scott's willingness to tackle the prob- 
lem, and others complained. On 18 December the Greensboro Daily News 
wrote an editorial ridiculing Scott's "new batch of scrambled eggs." It 
also criticized his insistence for immediate action, his statement that we 
don't need an outside study, "we know all the possibile alternatives," and 
his exclusion of administrators from the meeting. 

On 18 December Governor Scott met with the executive committee of 
the Board of Higher Education, which passed a resolution renewing its 
recommendation made in 1968 that "the General Assembly should create 
a single agency to plan and coordinate higher education." 

Governor Scott met with the executive committee of the Board of 
Trustees of the Consolidated University on 29 December in a special ses- 
sion that had been called to discuss the problems of higher education. 
The governor stated that the purpose of the meeting was to discuss the 
question of restructuring higher education in the state. He expressed con- 
cern of the situation as it existed, and he said his purpose was to begin a 
dialogue which hopefully would result in a plan that would make the 
state-supported system a more efficient and better system for the youth of 
the state and all citizens generally. Following discussion, the executive 
committee went on record unanimously as "expressing to the Governor 
gratitude for his forthright position concerning higher education in 
North Carolina and pledging to him its cooperation and assistance in 
finding the best possible solution." Governor Scott appointed a Sub- 
committee on the Structure of Higher Education in North Carolina, 
composed of Mr. Victor S. Bryant, chairman, Mrs. John G. Burgwyn, 
Messrs. Ike F. Andrews, Archie K. Davis, Walter L. Smith, Thomas J. 
White, Jr., and George M. Wood. He indicated that he planned to name a 
similar subcommittee from the Board of Higher Education and represen- 
tatives from boards of trustees of other senior public institutions. 

Governor Scott met with university presidents and chancellors, the 
Advisory Committee of Public University Presidents to the Board of 
Higher Education, on 4 January 1971. There is no record available of 
what transpired at that meeting. In accordance with the Victor Bryant 
motion made at his 13 December meeting, Governor Scott announced the 
formation of "the Governor's Study Committee on Structure and Or- 
ganization of Higher Education" on 8 January. This body consisted of 
Mr. Lindsey Warren, chairman, one person each from boards of trust- 
ees of nine public institutions and the School of the Arts, seven from 



[114] The Consolidated University of North Carolina 

the Board of Trustees of the Consolidated University, and five from the 
Board of Higher Education. It was instructed to study higher education 
in North Carolina and propose changes for improving its organization. 
On 22 February, at the regular meeting of the Board of Trustees of the 
Consolidated University, Governor Scott read a statement in which he re- 
marked that, "A halt must be called to the infighting, the maneuvering, 
the overlapping, the duplication that is all too prevalent in higher educa- 
tion in our State today. . . . The Board of Higher Education has been try- 
ing with only limited success to bring about some semblance of co- 
ordination. But it's been kind of like one referee in a ring with sixteen 
fighters — all going at the same time." 

Mr. Victor Bryant had been instructed by the executive committee to 
make a statement. He gave a brief history of the Consolidated University 
and what it had accomplished. Mr. Bryant admitted that there was a 
problem, and he had no solution to offer at this point; and the Warren 
Committee which had met only three times had not come up with a solu- 
tion. It was his opinion that the dedicated men and women of the Board 
of Trustees "can do a far better job of coordinating and administering the 
University's affairs than can some other groii)p much less familiar with its 
affairs." 

At the next regular session of the executive committee on 12 March, 
Mr. Bryant reported on the progress of the Warren Committee briefly. 
The study was continuing, he stated, "but no attempt has yet been made 
to come up with solutions." 

Within the Warren Committee, there were two main groups. One fa- 
vored the deconsolidation of the university and the establishment of a 
Board of Regents to govern higher education in North Carolina. The 
other favored its preservation with improvement in the authority of the 
Board of Higher Education. Mr. Warren, following a suggestion by 
Mr. Bryant and Mr. Paul Lucas, vice chairman of the Board of Higher 
Education, called on President Friday of the university and Dr. Cameron 
West, director of the Board of Higher Education, to draw up proposals 
for changing the powers of the Board of Higher Education. 

In response to the Warren request, President Friday and Dr. West met 
on 31 March for preliminary discussion of the matter. On that and other 
occasions Dr. West made it clear that he favored structural changes in the 
State System of Higher Education; nevertheless, he indicated his willing- 
ness to respond to Chairman Warren's request on the premise that he and 
President Friday had been asked to assume for purposes of their discus- 
sions. With members of their respective staffs, President Friday and Dr. 
West spent most of 1 and 2 April working out proposals for changes in 
Article 16 of Chapter 116 of the General Statutes, which related to the 



The Battle over Restructuring [ JI 5] 

Board of Higher Education. They concerned themselves not only with 
the general principles involved but also with the actual rewriting of the 
provisions of Article 16. They completed their task on the afternoon of 
2 April and at an evening meeting the same day attended by Mr. Bryant 
and Mr. Lucas, they delivered to Chairman Warren the results of their 
joint effort. 

No mention was made in the press of the proposal that President Friday 
and Dr. West were working on, nor was any report made of it until the 
Warren Committee Report was published a month and a half later. Mr. 
Warren had announced on 29 March to the press, "I would expect that 
after our meeting next weekend, it should be pretty clear what direction 
is indicated for the further governance of higher education." 

It was later disclosed that on 3 April the Warren Committee voted thir- 
teen to six to adopt the Friday- West document with minor changes, thus 
rejecting structural change in the organization of higher education in 
favor of modifying the role of the Board of Higher Education. 

There were three persons absent from the meeting, who were recorded 
as voting with the minority. This meant that, as of 3 April, the Study 
Committee had voted by thirteen to nine to reject any structural change 
in higher education and to adopt as its recommendation the rewritten 
version of Article 16 as modified by the committee. Mr. Warren agreed to 
draft a report setting forth the views then held by a majority of the 
committee. 

A draft report was submitted to the Study Committee on 23 April; 
however, that report was never acted upon by the committee. At this meet- 
ing, the Regency Plan was introduced and the committee voted to recon- 
sider its action of 3 April. On 8 May, the Regency Plan was adopted by a 
committee vote of thirteen to eight. According to an article in the News 
and Observer on 26 May, the Regency Plan was reintroduced by Messrs. 
Watts Hill, Jr., of the Board of Higher Education, W. C. Harris, a UNC 
trustee, and Wallace Hyde, who represented Western Carolina Univer- 
sity. The following persons switched their votes from the Friday- West 
Plan on 3 April, which would have preserved the Consolidated Univer- 
sity, to the Regency Plan on 23 April: Mr. Walter Smith, University of 
North Carolina trustee; Mr. Paul Lucas, Board of Higher Education; Dr. 
E. B. Turner, trustee of Fayetteville State University; and Mr. Sammie 
Chess, trustee of Winston-Salem State University. In addition, Dr. James 
Semans, trustee of the North Carolina School of the Arts, who voted 
with the majority on 3 April, abstained on 23 April. 

According to one analysis, there were sharp disagreements on the 
committee. In the early stages, however, according to the News and Ob- 
server, "there was a wide agreement at one time of over seventeen to five in 



[n6] The Consolidated University of North Carolina 

favor of a basic change to set up a strong central board." "In a sense," said 
a spokesman, "the April 3 vote came as a surprise and the April 23 vote 
was simply a return to the basic majority outlook." It was reported on 
8 May that the Warren Committee had voted thirteen to eight for the 
Regents Plan and that a Minority Report would be filed. The Committee 
Report was submitted to Governor Scott on 17 May 1971. It purported to 
combine the best features of the University of North Carolina and of the 
Board of Higher Education into one board and to insure through the 
board and the constitution of the staff "full representation of the points of 
view of all the institutions in the System." 

The report recommended a thirteen-member governing board for each 
of the sixteen public institutions. The respective staffs of the General Ad- 
ministration of the University of North Carolina and of the Board of 
Higher Education would be merged into a new state planning and coordi- 
nating agency to be known as the University of North Carolina System. 
It was further recommended\that a policy-setting Board of Regents com- 
posed of lay citizens representing all areas of the state should be created 
with one hundred members elected by the General Assembly in addition 
to several ex-officio members. The first board would be made up of per- 
sons from the current institutional boards and from the Board of Higher 
Education. The several institutional boards of trustees would hold the 
property and inherit the powers that had been accorded to the present 
trustees unless some of those powers were delegated to the Board of Re- 
gents. The University of North Carolina System would have as its major 
purposes those that were currently assigned to the Board of Higher Edu- 
cation: statewide planning and coordination of higher education. It would 
have stronger powers in the approval of new degree programs and in the 
review of budgets. The General Assembly would make appropriations di- 
rectly to individual institutions. Each institution, including the six within 
the Consolidated University, would be headed by a president who would 
be elected by the institutional Board of Trustees and confirmed by the 
Board of Regents. The Board of Regents, it was recommended, should 
elect a chancellor of the University of North Carolina System who "shall 
be the principal executive officer of the board and shall perform such du- 
ties and exercise such powers as are specified by statute and as may be 
prescribed by the Board." 

The result of this proposal would have been the deconsolidation of the 
university and an attempt to put a strong Board of Higher Education over 
the University of North Carolina System. 

Eight members of the committee voted in the minority. All but two, 
Mr. George M. Wood and Mr. John S. Stewart, joined in endorsing the 
Minority Report. Those who signed the report were: Mrs. Mebane H. 
Burgwyn, Messrs. Ike F. Andrews, Victor S. Bryant, Archie K. Davis, 



The Battle over Restructuring [117] 

Clyde A. Shreve, and Thomas J. White, Jr. The Minority Report con- 
sisted of the draft of proposed statutory changes that had been proposed 
by President Friday and Dr. West with a few minor revisions. It had the 
objective of strengthening the Board of Higher Education without de- 
stroying the overall structure of higher education in North Carolina. This 
proposal was not revealed to the public until the publication of the report. 
On 3 1 May an addendum to the Minority Report was submitted to Gov- 
ernor Scott. It described in detail the origin of the report and the voting 
record of the members of the committee. 

As early as 10 May the Speaker of the House, Mr. Phil Godwin, said 
that it was "too late in the session" for the General Assembly to consider a 
higher education reorganization bill, and "foreseeing so much contro- 
versy, I seriously doubt whether or not we can really give it the hearing 
and the consideration needed." Other legislators, hearing that the Warren 
Committee was badly split, had said the same thing — that the issue of 
restructuring would have to wait until 1973. 

Mr. Bryant gave a full report to the executive committee on 14 May. 
He summarized the Warren Committee Majority Report and said that 
members of the committee who did not favor it could file a minority re- 
port. He asked the executive committee for advice and the committee 
approved a resolution to "declare its firm opposition to the Regency 
Plan supported by the majority and its firm endorsement of the position 
adhered to by the minority." 

Governor Scott was determined to have the report considered by the 
General Assembly, and he announced on 18 May that in his opinion the 
assembly would have time to consider the higher education bill in spite of 
the claims of Speaker Godwin and others. 

Speaking to the North Carolina and South Carolina Associated Press 
News Councils at Wrightsville Beach on 22 May, Governor Scott, in a 
spirited and somewhat undignified speech in which he "virtually dis- 
regarded his prepared text," said that educators were behaving "like 
kids." "It's comical. It's vicious. They've got an intelligence that's un- 
believable — Bill Friday, Leo Jenkins, Cam West. . . . They are like kids. 
It's sickening. It really is." Governor Scott continued, "The President of 
the Consolidated University runs the campus at Chapel Hill. Make no 
mistake about that." 

On 24 May, there was a regular meeting of the Board of Trustees, which 
transacted usual business. It received a report from the president and con- 
sidered university physical development and went into the changed atti- 
tude of college students over the previous year. The board recessed until 
28 May when it was announced that the Warren Committee Report had 
not yet been published. 

Before the regular meeting of the board on 24 May, Governor Scott 



[n8] The Consolidated University of North Carolina 

held an informal and unofficial meeting with the executive committee of 
the Board of Trustees at which President Friday and other members of the 
staff of the General Administration were present in the Executive Com- 
mittee Room of the General Administration Building, which had just 
been occupied on 1 3 May. This turned out to be a heated and acrimonious 
session at which the governor threatened the Consolidated University 
with budgetary reprisals if it continued to oppose his plan. The meeting 
was reported in the News and Observer the next day with some omissions. 
Governor Scott sternly warned the executive committee against mount- 
ing an all-out campaign opposing reorganization. He insisted that he had 
the votes both to push the Warren Plan through the legislature and to put 
the pinch on the university budget if the trustees resisted. With some heat 
he stated that he had a whole box full of green stamps to cash in, and he 
would use them on this issue. Mr. Victor Bryant, with righteous indig- 
nation, replied, "Governor, you use your green stamps and we will use 
ours and we will see who wins. "1 At this juncture, the meeting broke off. 
Later Mr. Bryant, commenting on the refusal of the board and others to 
cave in to Governor Scott's demands, said that Scott's proposal "has done 
more to consolidate the Consolidated University than anything that ever 
happened." 

In a speech lasting more than forty minutes, Governor Scott presented 
to the General Assembly on 25 May the recommendations of the Warren 
Commission: "For some time, we have been traveling a dangerously er- 
ratic course in public higher education in North Carolina. We are pro- 
ceeding with all sail and no rudder. Wasteful and damaging forces are 
chipping away at the structure of our System. Disaster will follow unless 
it is righted, reinforced and redirected. Tomorrow will be too late." 

He then made a scathing attack on those whom he considered respon- 
sible for the disorders and recommended that the General Assembly enact 
legislation that would implement the Majority Report. At the same time, 
he recommended that they reject the Minority Report, which he said 
"speaks from the heart. It deals in romanticism in things past that some 
wish to preserve." The only major changes Governor Scott made in the 
Majority Report were to shift the date of implementation from 1 July to 
1 October and to reduce the number of regents from one hundred to 
forty-seven. The Warren Commission had recommended the larger num- 
ber in an unsuccessful attempt to get the support of the Consolidated 
University. 

The governor's speech created considerable excitement and legislators 
and educators started lining up for the battle to come. On 26 May, Gover- 
nor Scott invited members of the House and Senate Committees on 
Higher Education to breakfast and began courting their votes. His aides 



The Battle over Restructuring [ JI 9] 

after the meeting thought that he had enough support to approve the plan 
in both committees. 

The Board of Higher Education endorsed Governor Scott's plan by a 
vote of seventeen to two on 27 May and, on the same day, the North 
Carolina State University Alumni Association announced that it would 
remain neutral on the question because the association was divided. The 
alumni associations of the other institutions in the Consolidated Univer- 
sity all came out against Governor Scott. In an ill-advised attempt to in- 
timidate the associations, Representative Perry Martin, a strong Scott 
supporter, warned that the associations that lobbied against Governor 
Scott were in danger of losing their tax-exempt status. Also on 27 May, 
Governor Scott announced that he would not attend the meeting of the 
Board of Trustees of the Consolidated University scheduled for the next 
day even though he was chairman. Instead, he said he would spend the 
morning talking with legislators. "That's where the votes are," he re- 
marked. Representative Perry Martin and Senator Russell Kirby intro- 
duced bills into the General Assembly on 28 May to carry out the Warren 
Commission Majority Report. 

A lively battle was anticipated because forty-five of the one hundred 
and twenty members of the House and twenty-three of the fifty members 
of the Senate were alumni of the university at Chapel Hill. This was the 
date when the Board of Trustees of the university met to give further con- 
sideration to the problem of meeting the restructuring threat. Mr. Victor 
Bryant reported that the executive committee had firmly rejected the 
Scott plan. President Friday and Vice President Ferebee Taylor discussed 
in detail the statutory changes suggested by the Warren Committee Mi- 
nority Report, which would have strengthened the Board of Higher Edu- 
cation. Mr. William A. Dees, Jr., then offered a resolution, "that this 
Board favors the proposed improvement in the effectiveness of the Board 
of Higher Education as recommended in the Minority Report . . . that 
this Board opposes the proposed Regency Plan . . . that in the judgment 
of this Board, the Consolidated University . . . should not be dismantled 
without more objective and impartial study of the matter than has taken 
place to date . . . and that the Board authorize a committee to take actions 
to prove the Board's view." The resolution was adopted unanimously. 

During the first week in June, the University of North Carolina Trust- 
ees rented a five-room suite in the Hilton Inn in Raleigh to serve as a 
command post for the upcoming legislative battle. Mr. Jacob H. Froelich, 
Jr., of High Point headed the group which was called "Friends of Educa- 
tion." Mr. Ralph Strayhorn of Durham was one of the chief lobbyists. By 
this time, both sides began to refer to the contest as a "holy war" and 
there was little mention of any possibility of compromise. 



[120] The Consolidated University of North Carolina 

It is difficult to sort out all of the elements that generated this contro- 
versy. Since the days of the Dixie Classic episode, the name-change fight, 
the speaker-ban issue, and the campus tensions caused by student discon- 
tent and civil rights issues, pressure had been building. The governor was 
an ardent supporter of North Carolina State University and there was a 
rivalry between that institution and the university at Chapel Hill. As the 
Consolidated University began to expand, the former teachers colleges, 
which had become state colleges and then regional universities, became 
apprehensive that they might not achieve their coveted place in the system 
of higher education. There was a developing rivalry between the Consoli- 
dated University and the regional universities. The Board of Higher Edu- 
cation had also from time to time come into conflict with the Board of 
Trustees of the Consolidated University. There is no evidence that there 
was a conspiracy to deconsolidate the university but, at this particular 
juncture, the university did not have the support it had enjoyed a few 
years previously when the Carlyle Report was issued. Higher education 
had grown rapidly in enrollment afid even more rapidly in expensiveness. 
It was easy to point out that it was illogical to have a consolidated board 
for six institutions and a coordinating Board of Higher Education to 
oversee both the six institutions in the university and the ten institutions 
outside of the university. Despite its many achievements, it was difficult 
to counter the argument that "if consolidation is good for six, why is it 
not good for sixteen?" 

Alternate plans too numerous to mention were proposed by legislators. 
Three regional universities — Fayetteville State, Appalachian State, and 
Western Carolina — endorsed the Regency Plan. Senator Sam Ervin, 
breaking his long-standing resolution not to become involved in state 
issues, came out against the Regency Plan because it would cut away the 
freedom and liberties of the existing Boards of Trustees. At about this 
time, Governor Scott was asked how he thought his plan would fare in 
the legislature. He replied, "I have still got a lot of green stamps over 
there." 

On 5 June 1971 the Consolidated University suffered in the death of 
Irving Carlyle, one of its staunch supporters. He was seized by a heart 
attack as he was preparing a speech for the General Assembly. Among his 
last words were, "the Consolidated University must not be destroyed." 

Legislative hearings on Governor Scott's plan began with the appear- 
ance of Mr. Lindsey Warren before the Joint Higher Education Commit- 
tee on 9 June. Warren supported Scott's plan but said that if the legislature 
became deadlocked, a compromise would be possible; for example, one 
giving more authority to the Board of Higher Education than was pro- 
vided in the Minority Report. 



The Battle over Restructuring [ I21 ] 

An addendum to the Warren Committee's Minority Report had been 
prepared by Mr. Victor Bryant and submitted to Governor Scott and 
Mr. Warren on 3 1 May, restating the minority position in stronger terms 
than the original report. The fact that it had been prepared by President 
Friday and Dr. West was revealed. In transmitting the addendum, Mr. 
Bryant stated, "It is requested that this addendum be given the same dis- 
tribution as was given to the earlier reports." Governor Scott did not pass 
it on to the legislators until 9 June. When asked by a reporter why he had 
not released it earlier, Governor Scott replied, "It wasn't my report." 
About the middle of June, Mr. Ike Andrews introduced what was by this 
time the University of North Carolina Plan — the Warren Minority Re- 
port — as he said, "Just for the record." There was, however, a slight in- 
dication at about this time that sentiment was moving toward something 
more in the nature of a true structural change. President Friday and 
Chancellor Caldwell both went on record as favoring a stronger regents 
system than Governor Scott's — one that would govern instead of just 
coordinating. 

A new element entered the picture on 1 8 June when Senator John Burney 
who was managing the university campaign in the Senate announced that 
he had the signatures of twenty-eight out of the fifty senators for a bill 
that he introduced to postpone action until the 1973 General Assembly. 
This move, according to the press, came as a surprise. It hung over the 
proceedings for almost a month when Representative Ike Andrews, who 
was the chief of the university supporters in the House, announced that 
they would no longer push for the Burney Bill. It had become, as Repre- 
sentative Andrews said, "more a clash of personalities than it should be." 
He intimated that a similar bill calling for a two-year study might be in- 
troduced when a special session of the legislature assembled in October. 

The idea of an overall governing board continued to gather support 
when on Monday, 21 June, Dr. Cameron West, director of the Board of 
Higher Education, publicly announced that he could support such a board. 
That night there was a meeting at the governor's mansion, where higher 
education and the legislature were discussed. Among those present were 
Governor Scott, Lt. Governor Taylor, Speaker Godwin, Mr. Lindsey 
Warren, President Friday, Dr. West, Senator Russell Kirby, Mr. Fred 
Mills, the governor's legislative liaison, and perhaps others. The meeting 
began about 9:30 and lasted until 1:30 Tuesday morning. It was clear that 
no compromise could be reached before the legislature would adjourn, 
and Governor Scott announced that he would ask the General Assembly 
to reconvene in the fall when he would push for a much stronger Board 
of Regents than had been proposed earlier. It was not yet decided how 
long the recess would be. Governor Scott wanted a short break, sixty 



[122] The Consolidated University of North Carolina 

days or less, to give the University of North Carolina forces less time to 
work on the legislators. President Friday made it clear that he favored a 
governing board but would stick with the Board of Trustees in opposing 
restructuring. 

On 28 June, Governor Scott's new plan for a strong governing board 
was introduced. It provided a twenty-five member board of trustees of 
"The University of North Carolina System" that would govern all six- 
teen institutions and prepare a single higher education budget for the 
General Assembly. He also proposed a thirteen-member board of trustees 
for each of the institutions. The executive committee of the Board of 
Trustees met on 9 July and instructed the Trustee Committee, which had 
been authorized to carry out its legislative program on restructuring, to 
take actions to promote the views of the board. Thus it was clear by this 
time that the governor and many responsible educational leaders were 
calling for a strong governing board. The executive committee, at least 
for the time being, was sticking with the plan to strengthen the Board of 
Higher Education. / 

The regular session of the General Assembly ended on 21 July. A week 
later, Governor Scott, at a news conference, said that he and the Univer- 
sity of North Carolina people "are closer to agreement on principle than 
many people realize." Things were quiet for the next month but on 
18 August the governor met with his allies for two hours to plan their 
October strategy. Afterwards he announced that he was confident that his 
basic plan, one overall board, would be passed in one form or another. 

The University of North Carolina forces were also preparing for Oc- 
tober. Mr. Froelich and Senator Burney were conducting meetings, try- 
ing to come up with alternative measures, and planning for two big meet- 
ings — one for members of the House and one for the Senate on the 
weekend of 17-18 September. On 8 "September Governor Scott sug- 
gested that legislators who attended those meetings set up by his oppo- 
nents were perhaps being disloyal to the Democratic Party. 

Hearings by the General Assembly's House and Senate Committees on 
Higher Education began on 13 September. Governor Scott and his sup- 
porters argued that Mr. Froelich and Senator Burney should approach the 
committees with their suggestions and should not conduct meetings out- 
side the proper channels. 

President Terry Sanford of Duke University, appearing before the Joint 
Committee, offered his solution that the nine state-supported institutions 
outside of the Consolidated University should join the six UNC cam- 
puses under a one-hundred-member Board of Trustees with strong au- 
thority over budgets and programs. This was similar to a solution that 
President Friday had discussed with members of the Board of Trustees. 



The Battle over Restructuring [ I2 3] 

Dr. William B. Aycock, former chancellor of the university at Chapel 
Hill, proposed putting all sixteen institutions under a single planning and 
budgeting board but allowing each institution a separate board of trust- 
ees. This was essentially the plan that the governor had come to advocate. 

On 1 8 September some university supporters among the senators 
meeting in Wrightsville Beach and representatives meeting in High Point 
unveiled a new plan that would strengthen the Board of Higher Educa- 
tion under a new name and open the door for other universities to enter 
the Consolidated University. Reception of this Burney-Andrews pro- 
posal, as it was called, was reportedly lukewarm to hostile. The main 
criticism was that it would not accomplish anything because the prob- 
lems of budgeting, the system within a system, and other weaknesses 
would still exist. 

On 23 September Mr. Lindsey Warren told the Joint Committee that he 
now favored going beyond the coordinating board — in his Commission's 
Report — to a "governing board. Representative Perry Martin, chairman of 
the House Higher Education Committee, said that there was now a con- 
sensus in the legislature for a statewide governing board, and that he 
expected the bill his committee would soon draft would be accepted in 
October. An informal straw vote of the Joint Committee on Higher Edu- 
cation was overwhelmingly in favor of a strong central board over all 
state-supported universities. 

About this time, Mr. George Watts Hill, one of the university trustee 
foes of restructuring, and Mr. Ike Andrews said that they could accept 
some form of Governor Scott's proposed statewide governing board for 
all state universities. But Mr. Victor Bryant continued to warn that if the 
legislature abolished the Administrative Offices of the Consolidated Uni- 
versity, there would be a "holy war." 

Many of the leading characters in the restructuring battle attended the 
UNC-NCSU football game in Raleigh on Saturday, 2 October. At a 
buffet luncheon, those representing both sides agreed that a solution was 
near. Governor Scott, a State College alumnus, told Mr. Jake Froelich, a 
Carolina alumnus, "I tell you the outcome of this game today is going to 
have a lot to do about restructuring." The News and Observer reported 
"that the two were being affable was a sign that the movement toward 
agreement on restructuring is now proceeding albeit slowly and cau- 
tiously." The next week Governor Scott announced that he was moving 
the next meeting of the Consolidated University Board of Trustees from 
25 October to 18 October with a hope that a favorable vote there on re- 
structuring would influence the legislature. Speaking to the University of 
North Carolina at Chapel Hill Faculty Club, Governor Scott said that the 
board would be asked "to take a more positive approach to solving the 



[124] The Consolidated University of North Carolina 

restructuring issue." He warned that something must be done soon be- 
cause the regional universities were getting ready for another drive to ex- 
pand their graduate programs. The governor stated that "no one is out to 
get the University" and he confessed that he pled guilty to charges that 
some of his earlier speeches were "too abrasive, too abrupt." 

President Friday held an informal meeting with a combined group 
made up of the executive committee and the Consolidated University 
Development Committee on 7 October. At this meeting a document en- 
titled "Restructuring of Higher Education in North Carolina" was dis- 
cussed and it was decided that this would be recommended as the policy 
of the Board of Trustees. He met later the same day with the Joint Higher 
Education Subcommittee, which was considering the matter, and in- 
formed it that he would ask the Consolidated University Board of Trust- 
ees to back a statewide governing board. He then presented his plan to the 
subcommittee suggesting that the new system be created by gradually 
merging the state's nine regional university boards with the one-hundred 
member Consolidated University Board over a period of two years. This 
body, he argued, could serve as a nucleus for a transition. The subcom- 
mittee apparently did not care for President Friday's plan, which differed 
from their own in several ways. He wanted a board of one hundred. The 
subcommittee wanted a board of thirty-two or thirty-three members. He 
wanted a gradual consolidation. The subcommittee wanted immediate 
consolidation. They also differed on budgeting procedures. The subcom- 
mittee would have the new board list separate requests for each campus in 
priority order which it was argued by some would lead to pressure and 
juggling in the legislature. President Friday wanted stronger budgetary 
control for the board with lump-sum requests if possible. Governor Scott 
appeared to agree with President Friday on budgetary control. 

A special meeting of the executive committee with Governor Scott 
present was convened on 1 1 October. It received President Friday's rec- 
ommendations that he had proposed to the subcommittee on 7 October 
and approved it in the following motion: "Be it resolved that the Execu- 
tive Committee of the Board of Trustees of The University of North 
Carolina, having received the four-page document dated October 7 titled 
'Restructuring of Higher Education in North Carolina,' hereby endorses 
the recommendations set forth therein, urges their support by the Board 
of Trustees, and advocates their adoption by the General Assembly." 
Governor Scott said that he was satisfied with this even though President 
Friday's plan and that of the legislative subcommittee differed on several 
major points. 

At this point a campaign apparently began to bring pressure from the 
Consolidated University forces on the subcommittee to influence it to 



The Battle over Restructuring [ I2 5] 

write major new powers for the central board into the committee bill. 
The new version removed an earlier provision assigning statutory powers 
for local campus boards and provided instead that the central board 
would delegate authority to the local boards. This brought on a struggle 
with the regional universities. The subcommittee approved its bill on 
14 October by a vote of 10-6. Among its provisions were the following: 
(1) on the composition of the central board, the bill provided for fifteen 
members from the Consolidated University Board, fifteen from the re- 
gional universities, two from the Board of Higher Education, and one 
from the North Carolina School of the Arts; (2) on budgeting, the board 
would submit a unified budget for all sixteen institutions, prepared after 
consultation with the local boards. The budget would spell out broad pri- 
orities for new spending by the legislature and would give the central 
board authority to change the priorities with the approval of the Ad- 
visory Budget Commission; and (3) the subcommittee also guaranteed 
minority race membership on the board, minority party membership, 
and representation by women. 

According to the News and Observer, the guarantee of representation to 
Republicans was crucial in permitting the bill to pass. The two Republi- 
can members of the subcommittee would have voted against it without 
this guarantee of representation on the board. That would have caused a 
tie vote of 8-8 and with the tie breaker vote of Chairman Martin and 
Chairman Kirby, the bill would have favored the regional universities. 
The bill was sent on to the Joint Higher Education Committee of the 
General Assembly on 15 October where it was approved by a vote of 
19-13. Among the members of the Joint Committee from the House, the 
vote was 8-7 against the bill. This was an indication of how it would be 
received when the legislature reconvened. The House Committee on 
Higher Education would at that time have some debate on the issue. The 
Senate Committee, on the other hand, would have no debate although 
there was the possibility of a floor fight. 

Rumor had it that Governor Scott directed his forces on the Joint Com- 
mittee to switch sides and support the regional universities in their fight 
for local board powers. It was said that he agreed to support the regional 
universities in return for the reinstatement of the post of "Senior Vice 
President," a position the supporters of the regional universities had 
knocked out of the bill when it was still in the subcommittee. It was 
understood that Governor Scott wanted this post for Dr. Cameron West. 
The regional universities supported the reinstatement of the position, 
but Governor Scott's forces failed to support the move for local board 
powers. Governor Scott denied that there had been any such arrangement. 

The Board of Trustees of the Consolidated University convened in 



[i26] The Consolidated University of North Carolina 

Chapel Hill on 18 October. At the request of Governor Scott, Mr. Jake 
Froelich, who was the acting chairman of the Development Committee 
and who had been directing the lobbying activities of the university since 
the last meeting of the board, described the special efforts given by trust- 
ees — Mrs. A. H. Lathrop, Mrs. Howard Holderness, Mrs. Elise Wilson, 
Messrs. IkeF. Andrews, John A. Tate, George Ragsdale, Robert B.Jordan 
III, William L. Hill, William Dees, Jr., and John Jordan, Jr., assisted by 
Billy Harrison of Rocky Mount, Ralph Strayhorn of Durham, and many 
others. Mr. Ike Andrews commented on the shift that developed during 
the spring and summer from support for a coordinating board to support 
for some form of governance system. This influenced the committee in 
developing the position set forth in the paper on restructuring of higher 
education in North Carolina. Senator George Wood, a member of the 
Joint Committee on Higher Education, explained in some detail the bill 
that would be presented to the General Assembly and urged the board to 
support it. \ 

President Friday reviewed the considerations being discussed and 
pointed out that there were a number of points that had to be resolved in 
making a decision in favor of the bill. He was concerned about the follow- 
ing questions: 

Was it to be a management enterprise? 

Was long-range planning to be a function? 

What about program control? 

What about budget control? 

Personnel — who appoints and how are they to be appointed? 

What structure will make it go? 

What is the best method of merger? 

The governance itself — that is, the Code? 

Local boards — what about them, manner of selection and powers? 

Mr. Friday restated the arguments that he had presented to the Joint 
Higher Education Subcommittee on 7 October. 

Governor Scott stated that the best way to accomplish the desired end is 
a matter of opinion and said, "It is my opinion that whatever is done can 
be made to work." He thought it would depend on the leadership. When 
the issue was opened for discussion, Mr. Victor Bryant reiterated in an 
extensive statement that "The University of North Carolina should not 
be deconsolidated." Mr. George Watts Hill introduced a resolution that 
mentioned the elements of the restructuring bill of the Joint Subcommit- 
tee which were opposed by the supporters of the university and reiterated 
the strong opposition of the Board of Trustees. The resolution approved 
the bringing of "higher education under a single governing structure" as 



The Battle over Restructuring [ I2 7] 

advocated in the paper dated 7 October. It also created a Special Commit- 
tee on Restructuring, consisting of Messrs. Ike F. Andrews, Jake Froelich, 
Jr., William A. Johnson, Robert B. Jordan III, and Mrs. George D. 
Wilson, to act on behalf of the board and to "do such things as they con- 
sider in the best interest of the University with respect to the matter of 
restructuring higher education in North Carolina." Mrs. Lathrop sec- 
onded the Hill motion. Mr. Cary C. Boshamer spoke in favor of the 
resolution. Mr. William L. Hill made a substitute motion that would go 
back to the Minority Report of the Warren Commission, which was 
defeated. 

Mr. Charles W. Bradshaw made a substitute motion that the Board of 
Trustees endorse the Joint Committee on Higher Education bill. The mo- 
tion failed and the motion made by Mr. George Watts Hill was put to a 
vote and carried. 

The State Board of Higher Education, at its meeting on 21 October, 
voted 9-4 in favor of the legislative bill. Governor Scott announced that he 
had pledges of support from sixty-five of 120 representatives and twenty- 
eight of fifty senators. 

On 25 October several thousand black students from the traditionally 
black institutions marched up Fayetteville Street and gathered on the capi- 
tol grounds to protest the restructuring plan, which they avowed would 
"destroy" the black institutions. 

The General Assembly finally reconvened on Tuesday, 26 October 
1 971. In the House Committee on Higher Education there was opposi- 
tion to the Joint Committee's bill from both the Consolidated University 
and the regional universities. The University of North Carolina amend- 
ment to increase the board to one hundred members and to keep the uni- 
versity board intact was defeated 13-9. The proposal of the regional uni- 
versities to provide statutory powers for the local boards was rejected by a 
voice vote. The bill was out of the Higher Education Committee within 
four hours. In the Senate committee, the bill was approved without de- 
bate. The University of North Carolina supporters claimed that they 
were saving themselves for a floor fight. On Wednesday the House tenta- 
tively approved the bill by a vote of 74-39. In the Senate, the University 
of North Carolina amendment was defeated by a vote of 27-21. 

After the adoption of the Joint Senate and House Committee plan on 
15 October 1971, it was clear to those who studied the bill carefully that it 
had a disturbing flaw. The bill presented to the General Assembly pro- 
vided for two interruptions of governing board responsibility and au- 
thority; first on 30 June 1972, and again on 30 June 1973. On the latter 
date there would also be an interruption in the continuity of all the local 
boards. The strongest appeal of the Allen-Stevens amendment providing 



[i28] The Consolidated University of North Carolina 

for a large board, which was supported by the Consolidated University 
group, was that it avoided this dual interruption in the continuity of gov- 
erning authority. 

Mr. John L. Sanders, director of the Institute of Government of the 
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, was a witness to most of 
the special session and an adviser to the various groups that were trying 
to draft amendments that would improve the committee substitute for 
H.B. 1456 (S.B. 893). 

These substitutes were the bills that were officially before the legislature. 
Mr. Sanders kept a log of the events of 26- 30 October 1971, which he later 
compiled into a memorandum and signed on 15 August 1972. Much of 
the account of the special session is based on his memorandum. 

Early on the morning of 27 October, the day the Allen-Stevens amend- 
ments were to be voted on in the Senate, Mr. Sanders and Vice President 
A. K. King discussed the possibilities for adopting the amendments and 
concluded that they might be defeated. Dr. King suggested that Mr. 
Sanders prepare an amendment that wjould accomplish the following pur- 
poses: first, provide that the initial Board of Governors, as proposed in 
the committee substitute, be made permanent and, second, stagger the 
terms of the members of the board over several years and provide for their 
replacement, as terms expired, by legislative action. 

Mr. Sanders worked on the idea and, when the Allen-Stevens Amend- 
ment to S.B. 893 failed by a vote of 21-27 m the Senate on 27 October 
and the Senate adjourned for the day, he talked with Senator Zeb Alley 
about extending the terms of the first Board of Governors. Senator 
Gordon Allen was brought into the conversation, and they suggested that 
Mr. Sanders prepare such an amendment. Vice President Ferebee Taylor 
of the university was present during the conversation. 

They went to work on a draft of an amendment and were joined by 
Mr. Ralph Strayhorn, one of the university lobbyists, and Represen- 
tatives Mac Smith, Sandy Harris, George Miller, and Jack Stevens. 

After the group left for dinner, Vice President Taylor and Mr. Sanders 
continued to work on drafts of amendments to accomplish the following: 
first, to convert the interim Board of Governors into a permanent body; 
second, to transfer the power to appoint institutional boards of trustees 
from the governor to the General Assembly; and, third, to revise the 
statement of duties of the Board of Governors in its capacity as the Plan- 
ning Committee. 

Eventually the others returned, bringing with them Representative 
Lawrence Davis. After the group agreed on a draft, at about 3:00 a.m. on 
28 October, Mr. Sanders put it in proper amendment form. 

As drafted by Mr. Sanders, the amendment provided for a board of 



The Battle over Restructuring [ I2 9] 

governors of thirty-two members, sixteen chosen by and from the Board 
of Trustees of the University of North Carolina, and sixteen chosen by 
and from the boards of trustees of the other ten institutions. The method 
of selection and the allocation of members were stipulated. No members 
of the Board of Governors were allocated to the Board of Higher Educa- 
tion. The Governor was retained as chairman but only until 3 1 December 
1972. This version was later offered to the House by Representative Mac 
Smith on 28 October, with minor changes, and adopted. 

On 28 October Mr. Sanders saw Senator Allen, who had already 
talked with Senator Kirby about the amendment to change the Board of 
Governors into a permanent body and Senator Kirby had shown some 
interest. Senator Allen stated that the amendment prepared the night be- 
fore would not be satisfactory since it omitted the Board of Higher Edu- 
cation. It was his opinion that the governor would not agree to that. He 
asked Mr. Sanders to revise the amendment so that the initial member- 
ship of the Board of Governors would be the same as in the committee 
substitute for H.B. 1456. Mr. Sanders complied with his request. 

Senator Allen wanted a conference between the leadership of the uni- 
versity and the leadership of the legislature to see whether an agreement 
could be reached on the composition of the Board of Governors. Presi- 
dent Friday was located and agreed to come to Raleigh for a conference at 
three-thirty in the afternoon. Senator Allen tried to get the support of 
Representative Horton Rountree to the Board of Governors amendment. 
Representative Rountree had just seen the text of the amendment before it 
was offered in the House and was displeased at the prospect of East Caro- 
lina University drawing lots with the other four institutions in its group 
for the initial seats on the Board of Governors. He was concerned that 
East Carolina might get the two short terms. In the version of the amend- 
ment that Senator Allen and Representative Rountree were considering, 
which provided for fifteen members from the Consolidated University, 
fifteen from the regional universities, and two from the Board of Higher 
Education, East Carolina had only two places. Representative Rountree 
suggested that the School of the Arts be given no representation on the 
initial board and that its seat be given to East Carolina University. Sena- 
tor Allen agreed and instructed Mr. John Kennedy of the Board of Higher 
Education to prepare a revision of the amendment in accordance with 
Representative Rountree's suggestions. Representative Rountree returned 
to the House, which was already debating the Mac Smith version of the 
amendment making the Board of Governors permanent with sixteen 
members from the Consolidated University and sixteen from the remain- 
ing institutions. 

President Friday called Senator Allen to let him know that he was ready 



[130] The Consolidated University of North Carolina 

for the conference in the governor's office in the Administration Build- 
ing. Senator Allen accompanied by Senators Kirby and McLendon and 
Dr. Cameron P. West went to the meeting. Senator Allen invited the gov- 
ernor's legislative counsel, Mr. Fred Mills, but he refused to go on the 
ground that he had instructions from the governor to make no more 
compromises and get the bill out. The group, which Mr. Sanders at- 
tended, met for 25-30 minutes. Senator Allen informed President Friday 
that he thought the amendment with Board of Higher Education repre- 
sentation, the 1 5-1 5-2 plan, could be adopted thus bringing the fight to 
an end with a more satisfactory bill than the original had been. Mr. 
Sanders summarized President Friday's response as follows: 

Friday explained that he had tried to stay out of this controversy all 
along; that he had been abused by the press and by the University 
Trustees for not taking a position; that at considerable personal sacri- 
fice, he had gotten the Trustees off dead center on the issue, so that 
they were now willing to accept some change; that all the strategic 
moves of the week — the amendments, etc. — were the work of the 
Trustees, not of himself; and that he had been willing to take the bill 
as it came out of the Subcommittee if that was what was required to 
bring an end to the fight, so that the job of putting the pieces back 
together could begin. He said that if this amendment would end the 
fight, he would support it and ask Froelich and others to do so. 

After the conference broke up, Senator Allen met Mr. Froelich outside 
the Senate and was informed that the House had just adopted the 16-16 
amendment by a vote of 63-50. He tried to persuade Senator Allen to 
introduce the same amendment in the Senate, but Senator Allen felt that 
he was bound to uphold his agreement with Representative Rountree to 
introduce the 1 5-1 5-2 plan. The senator departed abruptly in a dis- 
gruntled mood. 

In the Senate with the bill on second reading, Senator Allen offered his 
amendment and Senator Kirby declared that the amendment was accept- 
able to him. It was adopted on a voice vote without opposition. 

One of the principal objectives of the amendment had been to elimi- 
nate the governor's authority to appoint members of the Board of Gover- 
nors. This had already been accomplished by an amendment offered by 
Senator Gudger earlier in the day. Senator Gudger also offered an amend- 
ment altering the mode of legislative election of the members of the 
Board of Governors, and it was quickly adopted on a voice vote. It pro- 
vided that new members elected each biennium should be selected from a 
list of nominees, one-half of whom would be chosen by the Senate and 
one-half by the House. 



The Battle over Restructuring I 1 ! 1 ] 

The Senate then adopted the committee's substitute for S.B. 893 as 
amended on second reading by a vote of 35-11. The Senate recessed until 
six o'clock in the evening when it expected to receive the House Com- 
mittee's substitute for H.B. 1456. From this point on, all action was based 
on the House bill since the House finished work on its bill first. 

The House passed the committee's substitute for H.B. 1456 on the 
third reading by a vote of 75-30 at 5 p.m. on 28 October. It was sent to the 
Senate where the presiding officer referred the bill to the Senate Commit- 
tee on Higher Education. Each of the House amendments was consid- 
ered, accepted, or rejected, and the bill was approved as amended by the 
committee. The Senate Committee on Higher Education adopted the 
Senate 1 5-1 5-2 version of the Board of Governors amendment rather than 
the House 16-16 version and so recommended the bill to the Senate. 

The Senate convened at eight o'clock that evening. Senator Kirby, now 
using the committee's substitute for H.B. 1456, reported it favorably as 
amended by the committee. The amendments were considered in order 
and after some debate the 1 5-1 5-2 amendment on the Board of Governors 
was adopted by a vote of 28-15. The 16-16 version was not considered by 
the Senate. The Consolidated University forces understood that they had 
an agreement that the Senate would accept this compromise; however, 
Governor Scott, Dr. West and their allies, with the support of the regional 
universities, were able to hold their forces steady on the 1 5-1 5-2 plan. 
When this plan was introduced in the Senate, it was reported that there 
were cries of "double-cross!" from university supporters. An amendment 
was then offered to provide for a temporary member from the School of 
the Arts on the Board of Governors to serve during 1972-73. This was 
adopted by a vote of 43-2 after an extended debate. Many recognized this 
amendment as the price of the support of the Republicans for the 1 5-1 5-2 
plan. Senator Horton (R-Forsyth) was strongly interested in this change 
and brought several other Republicans with him on the earlier 28-1 5 vote. 
The Senate passed the amended House bill on second reading by a voice 
vote and on third reading by a roll call vote of 36-7 at about 8:15 p.m. and 
adjourned until the next day. 

The House received its amended bill for concurrence in the Senate's 
amendments on Friday morning, 29 October. There was much discus- 
sion of several of the amendments and the House recessed to give time for 
further study, and Mr. Sanders, after there had been an agreement to 
combine three amendments, put them in the appropriate form. The dif- 
ference between the combined amendment and the three that were rewrit- 
ten into it related entirely to the election process. 

The Senate recalled the amended House bill from the House at about 
three o'clock in the afternoon of 29 October and rescinded the votes by 



[132] The Consolidated University of North Carolina 

which the bill had passed the second and third readings with the three 
amendments that had been merged into the larger amendment. The 
amendment was then offered and adopted. The bill passed its second 
reading on a voice vote and the third reading by a roll-call vote of 38-6. It 
was then dispatched to the House by a special messenger. The House re- 
ceived its amended bill for concurrence in the new Senate amendments 
and took it up at about 6:30 p.m. The bill, as amended, had substituted 
for the 16-16 plan for the Board of Governors that was in the House bill 
the plan allocating fifteen to the Consolidated University, fifteen to the 
nine regional universities, two to the Board of Higher Education, and 
one to the School of the Arts (1 5-1 5-2-1). 

Representative Ike Andrews, in an impassioned speech opposing the 
amendment that the House was called on to accept, stated: "You're creat- 
ing a system of higher education in which The University of North Caro- 
lina will have a minority voice. ... I dare anyone to tell me why, in terms 
of history, in terms of accomplishment, in terms of excellence, this should 
happen." 

Nevertheless, the House, after about an hour, on a roll-call vote, con- 
curred in the amendment by a vote of 55-51. 

The University of No^th Carolina forces, without pausing, mounted a 
determined floor campaign for another vote, and within thirty minutes 
had switched enough votes to deadlock the House on the reconsideration 
of the bill. Speaker Godwin broke the tie against reconsideration, and the 
House adjourned until next morning. 

That night and early Saturday morning there was intensive lobbying 
by Mr. Jake Froelich and his team and by Dr. West and his forces from the 
Board of Higher Education and the regional universities. The devotees of 
the School of the Arts, led by Mrs. Mary Trent Semans and Mr. Hugh 
Cannon, joined ranks with the Consolidated University to assure that 
they received representation on the Board of Governors and not become a 
pawn for the regional universities. It was reported in the News and Ob- 
server that just after midnight Govenor Scott talked to Representative Ike 
Andrews on the telephone and said, "No more talking, now we are going 
to count horses." 

There were many stories of the strenuous efforts that had been made by 
both sides to get all of their votes there. Some representatives and sena- 
tors who thought the action was all over were brought back from home. 
Others were encouraged to get up from their sick beds. The governor's 
men, it was reported, including the members of the Board of Parole, had 
been obvious in the Legislative Building during the morning of 30 Oc- 
tober, working for votes. 

The House convened on Saturday morning, 30 October, for the final 



The Battle over Restructuring I 1 3 3] 

showdown. Representative Jim Ramsey moved to reconsider the vote 
by which the House failed to recall H.B. 1456 from the enrolling office. 
This motion was passed on a roll-call vote 55-54 at 10:00 a.m. It was 
followed immediately by a motion by Representative Stevens to recall 
H.B. 1456 from the enrolling office, which passed 56-54 on a roll-call 
vote at 10:06 a.m. Representative Mac Smith then moved to reconsider 
the vote by which Senate Amendment number 6 had been concurred in 
by the House, and this motion was adopted 58-52 on a roll-call vote at 
10:15 AM - Representative Soles then moved that the House not concur in 
Senate Amendment number 6 to House Bill 1456 and that conferees be 
appointed to meet with conferees on the part of the Senate to consider 
their differences. Representative Martin and others spoke for the motion, 
and it carried on a voice vote at 10:24 AM - 

The issue that had agitated the state for so many months had finally 
come to a climax. The first vote of 55-54 to recall the bill from the enroll- 
ing office was the crucial vote. Within less than a half hour after that mo- 
tion, Representative Perry Martin, chairman of the House Higher Educa- 
tion Committee and the leader of the forces opposing the Consolidated 
University, made a speech supporting the appointment of conferees. Rep- 
resentative Martin later explained that the University of North Carolina 
forces had simply been more successful in their lobbying efforts. "Some- 
one did their homework well last night," he stated. "I was run over by a 
train." 

Governor Scott explained it this way, "I guess I must have dropped one 
of my green stamps and Ike Andrews picked it up." 

One apologist for the governor, Mrs. Nancy Roberts, said the univer- 
sity forces won by "outwaiting Scott's forces and letting them go home." 
An analysis of the vote repudiates this explanation. There were two more 
votes in the House on Saturday than there were on Friday. The university 
forces apparently won not by outwaiting their opposition but by out- 
lobbying them. 

After the vote to reconsider, the House and Senate Conference Com- 
mittee met for two hours and amended the act to suit the University of 
North Carolina — sixteen members from the university and sixteen from 
the regional universities and the School of the Arts and two nonvoting 
members as a consolation for the Board of Higher Education ending in 
eighteen months. The House passed the amended bill by 106-3 an d the 
Senate 40-0. 

The final battle over the initial composition of the Board of Governors 
was no trivial matter. The restructuring act provided that the board 
would function as a planning committee with Governor Scott as its chair- 
man from 1 January to 30 June 1972. Its action during this period would 



[134] The Consolidated University of North Carolina 

chart the future course of the university. It would choose a president, 
merge the staff positions of the General Administration of the university 
and the Board of Higher Education, select a site for the headquarters of 
the board, and initiate policies for launching the new board on 1 July 
1972. Furthermore, it would merge the two budgets. 

The Consolidated University was battling for equal representation to 
protect the values and quality of the historic university and to prove to 
the regional universities that in union there could be strength. The re- 
gional universities were reacting to fear of being gobbled up by the Con- 
solidated University. The Board of Higher Education had little to protect 
except the positions of its staff members. Governor Scott's position in his- 
tory on restructuring was secure. He had learned a lot in the previous ten 
months. A far better structure had been forged than anyone had ex- 
pected. He had every reason to be generous and agree to parity in repre- 
sentation for the Consolidated University, but he chose to make it a 
"horse race" and lost. He was never able to regain his momentum, and 
the new board led by the sixteen members from the old consolidated 
board soon began to follow an independent course. 

House Bill 1456, ratified by the General Assembly on 30 October 1971, 
was a far cry from the Majority Report of the Warren Commission pre- 
sented to Governor Scott on 17 May 1971, which he embraced in the 
beginning. It in effect had proposed the deconsolidation of the univer- 
sity; placing each of the sixteen senior public institutions under its own 
thirteen-member board (12 appointed by the governor and one, the stu- 
dent body president) with broad powers; and creating a 100-member 
board of regents elected by the General Assembly and presided over by 
the Governor to coordinate the University of North Carolina System. It 
would have been allocated little power over programs, less over budgets, 
and virtually none over personnel except that it would have had the power 
to approve presidents after they had been elected by the institutional 
boards. To comply with the state constitution, the Board of Trustees of 
the University of North Carolina was to be redesignated the Board of Re- 
gents of the University System. 

Over the summer of 197 1, as the issue was discussed and under the 
tutelage of such widely different personalities as President Friday and 
Dr. West, Governor Scott shifted his support to the concept of a strong 
governing board for all sixteen public senior institutions. The regional 
universities wanted their powers clearly set forth and guaranteed in a stat- 
ute. The Consolidated University wanted its own strong governing board 
of 100 members into which the other ten would be merged, and if there 
were to be local boards, their powers to be delegated by the governing 
board. Dr. West and the Board of Higher Education wanted a strong and 



The Battle over Restructuring [135] 

smaller governing board on which some of its members would have votes 
and which would take care of their staff. Governor Scott was opposed to 
the 100-member board which he believed was dominated by the univer- 
sity at Chapel Hill. He preferred a new board but, in the face of demands 
from all the institutions, settled for an initial board drawn from the six- 
teen and the Board of Higher Education. The latter was to dilute the 
strength of the Consolidated University and provide the governor two 
swing votes. The General Assembly was determined to retain the power 
to appoint the board. 

H.B. 1456 was a wise and skillfully drafted compromise. It replaced 
the 100-member Board of Trustees with a 32-member Board of Gover- 
nors for the university without disturbing the University of North Caro- 
lina as a legal entity. All of the powers of both the 100-member board and 
the Board of Higher Education were transferred to the Board of Gover- 
nors, and the Board of Higher Education was abolished. The regional 
universities retained their names and local boards and each of the six cam- 
puses of the Consolidated University was given a local board derived 
from the remaining members of the 100-member board after sixteen were 
selected for the initial Board of Governors; however, on 1 July 1973, all 
local boards were to be reconstituted with eight appointed by the Board 
of Governors and four by the state governor for staggered terms of two 
and four years. The student body president also was a member of the 
local board. These boards were given few statutory powers. 

After the planning period and the first six months of operation under 
the Board of Governors, the governor of the state would be replaced as 
chairman on 1 January 1973 by a presiding officer elected from the mem- 
bership of the board. Thereafter, the governor would no longer be in- 
volved in the internal operation of the university; however, he would ap- 
point one-third of the. local board members and exercise considerable 
influence on its policies as executive director of the state budget. 

Two members of the Board of Higher Education could sit with the 
Board of Governors as nonvoting participants until 1 July 1973. They had 
the thankless task of talking but watching others decide. Provision was 
made for merging their staff with that of the General Administration of 
the Consolidated University. 

The General Assembly retained its power over electing the governing 
board of the university; however, in providing for some lump sum appro- 
priations and authority for the board to fix the salaries of nonclassified 
personnel, it did make significant concessions. 

The restructuring act retained the Consolidated University titles "presi- 
dent" for the head of the university and "chancellor" for the heads of the 
constituent institutions and stipulated that the latter "shall exercise com- 



[136] The Consolidated University of North Carolina 

plete executive authority therein, subject to the direction of the Presi- 
dent." It provided for "all policies, rules and regulations" of the institu- 
tions to continue until modified. The merger of an institution into the 
University of North Carolina, it was stipulated, "shall not impair any 
term of office, appointment or employment of any personnel of the in- 
stitutions." Evidence of the pervasive influence of the Consolidated Uni- 
versity on the act was the directive that "As soon after July 1, 1972, as the 
Board can reasonably do so, it shall adopt for itself and all constituent 
institutions, a code based upon the code of the University of North 
Carolina." 

The purpose of the restructuring of higher education in North Caro- 
lina was, according to Governor Scott, "to bring about better planning, 
coordination, and more effective program and budget control among" 
the senior public institutions in the state. When the decision was finally 
reached, this function was assigned to a powerful board initially selected 
from the institutional boards, but eight would be elected by the General 
Assembly every two years beginning in 1973 for terms of eight years with 
the requirement that at least one be from a minority race, one from the 
minority political party, and at least one be a woman. No member of the 
General Assembly, officer or employee of the state or of any constituent 
institution, or spouse of any of these could serve on the board. It could 
choose its own officers, its staff, its committee structure, and its proce- 
dures. It was checked only by the General Statutes and the vague con- 
sciousness that it was a creature of the General Assembly. The latter evi- 
dently wanted to lift higher education out of the morass of politics into 
which it had sunk during the previous decade and have decisions made on 
educational and not political grounds. Consequently, it clothed the Board 
of Governors with the following extensive powers: 

1. Planning. "The Board of Governors shall plan and develop a coor- 
dinated system of higher education in North Carolina. To this end 
it shall govern the 16 constituent institutions. ..." 

2. Governance. "The Board shall be responsible for the general deter- 
mination, control, supervision, management and governance of all 
affairs of the constituent institutions. For this purpose the Board 
may adopt such policies and regulations as it may deem wise. ..." 

3. Allocation of functions. "The Board shall determine the functions, 
educational activities and academic programs of the constituent 
institutions. The Board shall also determine the types of degrees 
to be awarded. The powers herein given to the Board shall not be 
restricted by any provision of law assigning specific functions or 
responsibilities to designated institutions, the powers herein given 



The Battle over Restructuring I 1 3 7] 

superseding any such provisions of law. The Board, after adequate 
notice and after affording the institutional board of trustees an 
opportunity to be heard, shall have authority to withdraw ap- 
proval of any existing program if it appears that the program is 
unproductive, excessively costly or unnecessarily duplicative." 

4. Personnel. "The Board of Governors shall elect officers as provided 
in G.S. 1 16-14. Subject to the provisions of Section 18 of this Act, 
the Board shall also elect, on nomination of the President, the 
chancellor of each of the constituent institutions and fix his com- 
pensation. The President shall make his nomination from a list of 
not fewer than two names recommended by the institutional 
board of trustees. 

The Board of Governors shall, on recommendation of the Presi- 
dent and of the appropriate institutional chancellor, appoint and 
fix the compensation of all vice-chancellors, senior academic and 
administrative officers and persons having permanent tenure." 

5. New colleges. "The Board shall approve the establishment of any 
new publicly-supported institution above the community college 
level." 

6. Tuition and fees. "The Board shall set tuition and required fees 
at the institutions, not inconsistent with actions of the General 
Assembly." 

7. Enrollment levels. "The Board shall set enrollment levels of the 
constituent institutions." 

8. Budget. 

"a. The Board of Governors shall develop, prepare and present to 
the Governor, the Advisory Budget Commission and the Gen- 
eral Assembly a single, unified recommended budget for all of 
public senior higher education. The recommendations shall 
consist of requests in three general categories: (i) funds for the 
continuing operation of each constituent institution, (ii) funds 
for salary increases for employees exempt from the State Per- 
sonnel Act and (iii) funds requested without reference to con- 
stituent institutions, itemized as to priority and covering such 
areas as new programs and activities, expansions of programs 
and activities, increases in enrollments, increases to accommo- 
date internal shifts and categories of persons served, capital 
improvements, improvements in levels of operation and in- 
creases to remedy deficiencies, as well as other areas. 



[138] The Consolidated University of North Carolina 

b. Funds for the continuing operation of each constituent institu- 
tion shall be appropriated directly to the institution. Funds for 
salary increases for employees exempt from the State Person- 
nel Act shall be appropriated to the Board in a lump sum for 
allocation to the institutions. Funds for the third category in 
paragraph a. of this subdivision shall be appropriated to the 
Board in a lump sum. The Board shall allocate to the institu- 
tions any funds appropriated, said allocation to be made in 
accordance with the Board's schedule of priorities; provided, 
however, that when both the Board and the Advisory Budget 
Commission deem it to be in the best interest of the State, 
funds in the third category may be allocated, in whole or in 
part, for other items within the list of priorities or for items 
not included in the list. 

c. The Advisory Budget Commission may, on recommendation 
of the Board, authorize transfer of appropriated funds from 
one institution to another to provide adjustments for over- or 
under-enrollment or may make any other adjustments among 
institutions that would provide for the orderly and efficient 
operation of the institutions." 

9. Data gathering. "The Board shall collect and disseminate data con- 
cerning higher education in the State. To this end it shall work 
cooperatively with the Department of Community Colleges and 
shall seek the assistance of the private colleges and universities. It 
may prescribe for the constituent institutions such uniform re- 
porting practices and policies as it may deem desirable." 

10. Private colleges. "The Board shall assess the contributions and 
needs of the private colleges and universities of the State and shall 
give advice and recommendations to the General Assembly to the 
end that the resources of these institutions may be utilized in the 
best interest of the State. ..." 

11. Advice and recommendations. "The Board shall give advice and rec- 
ommendations concerning higher education to the Governor, the 
General Assembly, the Advisory Budget Commission and the 
boards of trustees of the institutions." 

12. Delegation of authority. "The Board may delegate any part of its 
authority over the affairs of any institution to the board of trust- 
ees or, through the President, to the chancellor of the institution 
in any case where such delegation appears necessary or prudent to 



The Battle over Restructuring [ J 39] 

enable the institution to function in a proper and expeditious 
manner. Any delegation of authority may be rescinded by the 
Board at any time in whole or in part." 

13. Powers not specifically given. "The Board shall possess all powers 
not specifically given to institutional boards of trustees." 

The board had a number of other powers and duties. It was given the 
same authority to acquire, manage, and dispose of property as the Board 
of Trustees of the university had possessed. The Board of Governors re- 
placed the former trustees as the body authorized to issue self-liquidating 
bonds for capital construction on all of the campuses. It was responsible 
for the regulation of motor vehicles and traffic on all campuses. The 
power to grant and revoke licenses to operate private degree-granting in- 
stitutions was transferred to the board from the Board of Higher Educa- 
tion. The same was true of the responsibility to administer programs of 
state aid to private colleges. In addition, the board was responsible for 
administering federal programs of aid to students or to institutions that 
were statewide and for the benefit of higher education except those that 
were exclusively for the community colleges. These and other powers, 
granted or implied, clothed the Board of Governors with what John 
Sanders, the principal authority on this subject, called with some under- 
statement "ample powers to govern the public institutions of higher 
education." 

In contrast to the Board of Governors, the boards of trustees of the 
sixteen constituent institutions were granted by statute few powers and 
duties. These are summed up, with one exception, in the following 
statement: 

G.S. 116-33. Powers and duties of the boards of trustees. Each board of 
trustees shall promote the sound development of the institution 
within the functions prescribed for it, helping it to serve the State in 
a way that will complement the activities of the other institutions 
and aiding it to perform at a high level of excellence in every area of 
endeavor. Each board shall serve as advisor to the Board of Gover- 
nors on matters pertaining to the institution and shall also serve as 
advisor to the chancellor concerning the management and develop- 
ment of the institution. The powers and duties of each board of 
trustees, not inconsistent with other provisions of this Article, shall 
be defined and delegated by the Board of Governors. 

The exception related to the election of the chancellor. As pointed out 
above, the statute directed the Board of Governors to elect the chancellor 
of an institution "on nomination of the President." He was required to 



[140] The Consolidated University of North Carolina 

make his nomination "from a list of not fewer than two names recom- 
mended by the institutional board of trustees." Some feared that this was 
a chink in an otherwise impregnable plan that could lead to controversy 
in the years ahead. Fortunately, it did not require the president to nomi- 
nate from the first list that he received from a board of trustees. 



CHAPTER 



Administrative Changes 



At the regular meeting of the Board of Trustees on 24 February 1964, 
President Friday discussed the staff of the consolidated office. If one con- 
sidered what had transpired during the past seven years with respect to 
enrollment, the addition of new faculty, the expansion of budgets, the 
introduction of new educational programs, and the construction of many 
new buildings, "the evidence of far-reaching change in the Consolidated 
University was clear. 

Enrollment alone in the three institutions had expanded from over 
14,000 students to 22,831. General-fund expenditures had increased from 
about $14,800,000 to over $33,400,000. This expansion had brought a 
strain on the staff of the Consolidated University. At that time, it con- 
sisted of the president, the vice president for graduate studies and re- 
search, vice president and finance officer (which position had been vacant 
since i960), business officer and treasurer, and secretary of the university 
and the escheats officer. After the legislature of 1963 authorized the uni- 
versity to study the need for expanding the university to new campuses, 
President Friday recommended a reorganization of his staff which would 
include (1) changing the title of vice president for graduate studies and 
research to vice president for academic affairs; (2) dropping the title of 
vice president and finance officer, and adding vice president for admin- 
istration; (3) adding another senior position, which had been authorized 
by the 1963 General Assembly, to be designated vice president for institu- 
tional studies; (4) deleting the position of secretary of the university; and 
(5) retaining the positions of business officer and treasurer and escheats 
officer. He recommended that Dr. Donald B. Anderson become vice 
president for academic affairs and be recognized as the senior staff officer 
in all academic matters — undergraduate, graduate, and professional. Next 
he recommended that Mr. Fred H. Weaver who had been secretary of the 
university be promoted to vice president for administration concerned 
with broad administrative duties, in addition to his responsibility for staff 
work for the Board of Trustees. Finally, he recommended that Dr. Ar- 
nold K. King be elected vice president for institutional studies. He was 

[hi] 



[142] The Consolidated University of North Carolina 

the only one who had not been previously connected with the consoli- 
dated office. Dr. King had the bachelor's degree from the university at 
Chapel Hill and the master's and Ph.D. degrees from the University of 
Chicago. He was professor of the history and philosophy of education in 
the School of Education at Chapel Hill and had been associate dean of the 
Graduate School and director of the Summer Session, and he had consid- 
erable experience in the field of institutional research and planning as a 
member of Chancellor Aycock's staff. 

These recommendations were all approved, and the administrative 
team was ready for the contemplated expansion of the university. 

Another administrative change occurred during 1964. It was the retire- 
ment of Chancellor Ay cock and the selection of his successor. Chancellor 
Aycock had made it known in July of the previous year that he desired to 
return to his professorship in the School of Law. For almost eight years 
Chancellor Aycock had been a tower of strength to the Consolidated 
UniversityrHis stand on freedom of the university, his effective reorgani- 
zation of administrative procedures at Chapel Hill, especially in health af- 
fairs, his ability to secure improved financial support for the university, 
his activities in establishing distinguished professorships, his effective 
work in establishing a long-range plan for the university at Chapel Hill, 
and the contributions of his keen legal mind to the deliberations of the 
administration — all made him a difficult person to replace. 

A great outpouring of editorials showed that the appreciation of his 
work was understood statewide. Every important daily paper in the 
state recognized his contributions with an editorial, all of which were 
complimentary. 

A committee composed of seven members from the faculty, five from 
the alumni of the university, and five from the Board of Trustees was ap- 
pointed to make nominations for a successor to Chancellor Aycock. The 
chairman of the committee was Mr. William Medford from the Board of 
Trustees. The committee surveyed the country and made its report to 
President Friday, who on 25 May 1964 placed Dr. Paul Frederick Sharpe 
in nomination for the chancellorship. Dr. Sharpe was president of Hiram 
College in Ohio. He was a native of Missouri, received his undergraduate 
degree from Phillips University at Enid, Oklahoma, then went to the 
University of Minnesota to pursue graduate study in history. He served 
as a Naval Officer during World War II and after the war received his 
Ph.D. from the University of Minnesota in 1947. He had been an instruc- 
tor at the University of Minnesota, associate professor of history at Ohio 
State University and professor of history at the University at Wisconsin. 
Since July 1957 he had been president of Hiram College. Dr. Sharpe had 
an impressive record as a scholar and author. He had received many 



Administrative Changes [H3] 

awards and honors during his career. From the record it looked as if the 
university had found the ideal chancellor, and he was unanimously and 
enthusiastically elected by the board. 

Chancellor Sharpe joined the university at Chapel Hill at the opening 
of the fall semester of 1964. He immediately undertook to reorganize the 
top administration of the university with an attempt to bring academic 
affairs and health affairs under one administration. Dr. J. Carlyle Sitterson, 
dean of the College of Arts and Sciences, was made vice chancellor of the 
university. Dr. Sharpe proved to be popular among students and staff 
during his first year. He threw himself into the speaker-ban controversy 
with some vigor. By the beginning of his second year, Chancellor Sharpe 
began to show signs of discontent. Some of his statements indicated that 
he was not happy in a multicampus organization where he was not the 
top executive. On 29 December 1965 President Friday asked him to ex- 
plain his reasons for requesting to be released from the chancellorship in a 
special meeting of the executive committee of the Board of Trustees. It 
developed in the course of the conference that Chancellor Sharpe had 
long had an ambition to be president of Drake University, which had a 
connection with the Disciples of Christ, the church in which he had been 
raised. The president of Drake died shortly after Dr. Sharpe came to 
Chapel Hill, and the position had not been filled in the intervening four- 
teen months. He had been invited to accept the presidency. It was alleged 
by some that his discontent in a multicampus administration was exacer- 
bated by his desire to go to Drake. 

The executive committee of the board, with some hesitation and at the 
insistence of President Friday, who counseled generosity rather than 
harshness, released Chancellor Sharpe 15 February 1966 with accumu- 
lated leave. 

President Friday recommended the appointment of Vice Chancellor 
J. Carlyle Sitterson as acting chancellor until a successor to Chancellor 
Sharpe could be chosen. 

An advisory committee composed of members of the faculty went to 
work on 8 January 1966, searching for a replacement for Chancellor 
Sharpe. They held thirty meetings and considered numerous possibilities 
both inside and outside of the institution. Its report was mentioned at the 
meeting of the executive committee on 13 May, and a special meeting of 
the Board of Trustees was called for 23 May 1966. President Friday, on the 
recommendations of the advisory committee, presented the name of 
Dr. Joseph Carlyle Sitterson for the chancellorship. Dr. Sitterson had 
been serving with great effectiveness as acting chancellor. He had re- 
ceived his A.B., M.A., and Ph.D. from the university at Chapel Hill in 
history and had been a member of the faculty since 1935. He was a well- 



[144] The Consolidated University of North Carolina 

known scholar in the field of American history and had written several 
books and numerous articles. His administrative experience covered a 
wide range of assignments. More recently he had been dean of the Col- 
lege of Arts and Sciences and of the General College, and he had been 
vice chancellor of the university since July 1965. 

There was general elation with Dr. Sitterson's appointment to lead the 
university in the turbulent period of the late 60s complicated by the 
Speaker-Ban Law and the student unrest growing out of the civil rights 
revolution and the Vietnam War. Dr. Sitterson's mature experience and 
native roots were assets of great value in the years ahead. The recommen- 
dation was approved unanimously by the Board of Trustees. 

Prior to the administrative changes at Chapel Hill, the University at 
Greensboro had been asked to contribute its chancellor to President 
Johnsons's administration for a fourteen-month period as director of the 
Job Corps. Beginning in October 1964, the dean of the graduate school at 
Greensboro, Dr. Janies S. Ferguson, was asked to serve as acting chancel- 
lor in the absence of Chancellor Singletary. Dr. Ferguson picked up the 
work of changing the institution from a woman's college to a coeduca- 
tional university with skill and effectiveness. Chancellor Singletary re- 
turned to the university in January 1966 and was present long enough to 
participate in some of the deliberations regarding the speaker-ban issue; 
however, his stay was short-lived and on 9 September he resigned to 
become vice president of the American Council on Education in Wash- 
ington. Dr. Ferguson was called on once again to act as chancellor and 
a committee went to work to find a replacement for Dr. Singletary. On 
9 January 1967 a special meeting of the Board of Trustees assembled in 
the hall of the House of Representatives in the state capitol building in 
Raleigh to select another chancellor. The committee reported that it had 
considered more than eighty names but "from the beginning there came a 
great mass of support for one individual from the faculty, the students, 
the alumnae and the public. There was an overwhelming demand for this 
one man." President Friday recommended their choice — Dr. James S. 
Ferguson, the acting chancellor. He was a native of Mississippi, a gradu- 
ate of Millsaps College with a master's degree from Louisiana State Uni- 
versity, a Ph.D. from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 
and a year as a postdoctoral scholar under a Ford Foundation grant at Yale 
University. He had a successful career in teaching and administration at 
Millsaps before joining the University at Greensboro in 1962 as dean of 
the graduate school and professor of history. 

Chancellor Ferguson proved to be the ideal leader for the difficult job 
of converting the image of the institution. All who came under his influ- 
ence respected him for his wise administration, sympathetic understand- 
ing, and modest genius. 



Administrative Changes [ J 45] 

President Friday found it necessary to make another major change in 
his own staff during the 60s. Dr. Donald B. Anderson, vice president 
for academic affairs, retired on 30 June 1966. He was replaced by Dr. 
William S. Wells, Kenan Professor of English in the university at Chapel 
Hill, who was elected on 23 May 1966 in a regular meeting of the Board 
of Trustees. Dr. Wells received the Ph.D. from Stanford University in 
1935 and came to Chapel Hill in the same year as an instructor in English. 
He advanced through all of the professorial ranks to Kenan Professor of 
English, and he also had extensive administrative experience as an adviser 
in the General College, academic coordinator of the Navy V-12 program 
and dean of the College of Arts and Sciences. He had served on numerous 
committees and represented the university in many professional and 
scholarly societies. His nomination was received with enthusiasm and ap- 
proved unanimously by the board. 

At this same meeting, Miss Billie Curtis, who had long been the as- 
sistant secretary of the board and had been responsible for keeping the 
minutes of the board, resigned her position. The board went on record 
as expressing its "deepest sentiments of appreciation for her excellent 
work." The board found it reassuring that she would continue her con- 
nection with the university administration and that her knowledge and 
advice would be available. 

As the university continued to grow in complexity during the period 
from 1965 to 1972, and as many problems of great consequence had to be 
dealt with, other changes in administrative personnel were necessary. The 
responsibility of informing the public about the activities of the consti- 
tuent institutions and of the General Administration of the university be- 
came a daily problem, and in November 1966 President Friday added Mr. 
Rudolph Pate to the staff as assistant to the president. Mr. Pate had grad- 
uated from North Carolina State in 1943 and was the director of the news 
bureau at his alma mater for the next nineteen years. He became an asso- 
ciate director of the Southern Regional Education Board in Atlanta in 
1962 and was in charge of public relations for that board before coming to 
Chapel Hill. He was thoroughly familiar with educational problems and 
with the kind of information that the public needed for an objective view 
of the university, and he established a public relations office that was re- 
spected by members of the press in North Carolina. When he was offered 
an important administrative post on the campus at North Carolina State 
University, he was released with reluctance. President Friday was fortu- 
nate to persuade Mr. Jay Jenkins, who was editor of the editorial page of 
the Winston-Salem Journal , to join the staff in October 1969. Mr. Jenkins 
graduated from Wake Forest and had been a correspondent for the Charlotte 
Observer before going to the Winston-Salem Journal. He was widely re- 
spected by his colleagues in the North Carolina Press Association and 



[146] The Consolidated University of North Carolina 

brought a talent for writing to the General Administration that was 
needed in this time of confusion and disruption. He carried on the Uni- 
versity of North Carolina Newsletter that had been established by Mr. Pate 
and continued to make it a useful medium for reporting the actions of the 
Board of Trustees and the activities of the six campuses of the university. 

When Vice President Wells joined the staff in 1966 it was already appar- 
ent that the burden of looking after research, federal grants, and the out- 
reach activities of the university was too much for the Office of Aca- 
demic Affairs, and the position of vice president for research and public 
service programs was reinstituted. Dr. Charles E. Bishop, Reynolds Pro- 
fessor of Economics and chairman of the Department of Economics at 
North Carolina State, joined the staff to look after this important func- 
tion. Dr. Bishop received a B.S. degree from Berea College, the M.S. 
degree from the University of Kentucky, and the Ph.D. from the Univer- 
sity of Chicago. He joined the faculty of North Carolina State in 1950. 
Dr. Bishop was a nationally known economist and had just completed a 
period of duty as executive director of President Johnson's National Ad- 
visory Commission on Rural Poverty. He organized the procedures for 
managing research grants and training programs. He looked after the 
many intercampus programs and institutes and was a valuable adviser to 
the president over the next four years. When he resigned in 1970 to be- 
come chancellor of the University of Maryland at College Park, he was 
replaced by Dean Brooks James of the School of Agriculture and Life Sci- 
ences, North Carolina State University, who continued in this position 
through the period of restructuring. Dr. James was a native of North 
Carolina. He received the bachelor's degree from North Carolina State in 
1932 and the master's degree in 1940. In 1949 he completed the Ph.D. in 
economics at Duke University and had a year of postdoctoral study at the 
University of Chicago. He had come up through the ranks at North 
Carolina State where he joined the Extension Service in 1939 following 
four years as a farm agent. He served as dean of the School of Agriculture 
and Life Sciences from i960 to 1970; he had had a year with the federal 
government as assistant administrator for the Agency for International 
Development in the Department of State. Dr. James concentrated on de- 
veloping a more effective outreach program at the university through the 
various extension activities, institutes, and research centers. His advice 
was invaluable during the crucial period of debate over restructuring and 
the initiation of the subsequent program of the Board of Governors. 

Another area which had outgrown the manpower resources of the uni- 
versity was the field of business and finance. Since the death of Vice Presi- 
dent William D. Carmichael, the burden of this office had been carried 
by a single individual, Mr. A. H. Shepard, Jr. With the tremendous 



Administrative Changes [!47] 

growth in enrollment at the university, the increase in the number of cam- 
puses and the large building program, the need for more oversight in this 
area had become acute. After a considerable period of searching, Presi- 
dent Friday recommended Mr. L. Felix Joyner for the position of vice 
president for finance, effective 19 March 1968. Mr. Joyner was a native of 
Georgia and a graduate of Berea College. He had served in the Navy dur- 
ing World War II and had taken graduate work at the universities of Ala- 
bama, Tennessee, and Kentucky and had also attended the Harvard 
Graduate School of Business Administration. Mr. Joyner had extensive 
experience in public finance and administration. He had recently been 
commissioner of finace for the State of Kentucky and had spent some 
time as a consultant for the Ford Foundation in Southeast Asia and for the 
government of Pakistan under the aegis of the Agency for International 
Development. Mr. Joyner's knowledge and experience were felt imme- 
diately throughout the university, and he introduced a system for manag- 
ing the budget "and finances that has been widely acclaimed and has had 
a beneficial influence on the financial management of the entire state. 
Mr. Joyner gathered around him a staff of talented young men and women 
who remained with the university through the rest of the Consolidated 
University period and continued to manage the finances of the restruc- 
tured university as it became a billion dollar operation. 

In 1968 Vice President Frederick H. Weaver resigned to go to India for 
the Ford Foundation as an educational adviser to the Administrative Staff 
College of India. Since 1962 he had been responsible for the many activi- 
ties of the Board of Trustees carried on through the Office of General Ad- 
ministration, and he had been a valuable adviser to President Friday on 
student affairs and many other matters that involved relationships with 
alumni and friends of the university. During this period he had been 
studying toward an advanced degree in history at Columbia and Duke 
Universities. When he completed the Ph.D. at Duke University in 1967, 
he became interested in a foreign assignment and gave the mission to In- 
dia a six-weeks trial. Later he was away on leave for a longer period of 
time, and eventually he decided to take a position offered by the Ford 
Foundation. He had several productive years in India and unfortunately 
died suddenly on 8 January 1972. 

When Mr. Weaver first went on leave of absence, Mr. Friday sought the 
temporary assistance of Mr. Richard H. Robinson, associate professor of 
law at Chapel Hill. Mr. Robinson was a Morchead Scholar, a graduate of 
the university at Chapel Hill, and held aJ.D. degree from New York Uni- 
versity. He had had experience in private practice in the field of labor law. 
He filled the temporary position admirably and later became an assistant 
to the president for legal affairs. He continued in that capacity on a per- 



[148] The Consolidated University of North Carolina 

manent basis as the amount of litigation involving the university came to 
consume not only his efforts but those of several assistant attorneys. 

When it became necessary for Mr. Robinson to fulfill a teaching en- 
gagement at the University of Texas in the summer of 1968, Mr. Henry 
W. Lewis became acting vice president for university relations, effective 
from 1 August 1968 to 30 June 1969 when Dr. Weaver was scheduled to 
return. He was a native of Jackson, North Carolina, and held an A.B. 
from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and the LL.B. de- 
gree from Harvard. He had practiced law, had been a captain in the Army 
during World War II, and had joined the Institute of Government staff in 
1946 where he was professor of public law and government at the time he 
joined the staff of the General Administration. 

During the critical period of student dissension, Mr. Lewis rendered 
exceptional service in /assisting joint committees of the Board of Trustees, 
the administration, students, and faculty in formulating the disruption 
policy. 

When it became evident that Dr. Weaver would not return, President 
Friday began looking for someone to fill the position of vice president for 
administration. In 1966, a prominent New York attorney, Mr. N. Ferebee 
Taylor, was visiting professor of law at the University of North Carolina 
for a semester. It was known that he wished to return to Chapel Hill. 
Mr. Taylor was native of Oxford, North Carolina. He received the A.B. 
degree from the university at Chapel Hill, where he was President of Phi 
Beta Kappa, and the LL.B. degree from Harvard. During World War II he 
had a distinguished career in the United States Navy. Following the war, 
he was a Rhodes Scholar. After he finished his law degree at Harvard, he 
became a partner in a well-known New York law firm. Mr. Taylor con- 
sented to come to Chapel Hill and entered upon his duties as vice presi- 
dent for administration on 1 July 1970, where he continued through the 
period of debate over restructuring and was a very effective counselor to 
the president and the Board of Trustees in that tense era. He was joined as 
assistant secretary to the board by Miss Sarah Virginia Dunlap, who had 
for many years been connected with the School of Medicine at Chapel 
Hill and had more recently been employed by the Markle Foundation 
with headquarters in New York City. She brought exceptional grace, dig- 
nity, and skill to a difficult assignment. 

Chancellor Sitterson, who had borne the brunt of much of the dissen- 
sion and confusion on the campus at Chapel Hill during the second half 
of the decade of the 60s had asked to be relieved of his responsibilities but 
consented to stay on during the restructuring debate. A trustee commit- 
tee, headed by Mr. Ike Andrews, had been looking for a replacement 
during 1970-71. It recommended to the Board of Trustees in January 
1972 the name of N. Ferebee Taylor, who was elected and assumed office 



Administrative Changes I 1 49] 

on i February. No chancellor or administrative officer of the university 
rendered more valiant service than Chancellor Sitterson, who served the 
university at Chapel Hill far beyond the call of duty for over six years. 

The Board of Trustees, acting as a surrogate for the Planning Commit- 
tee, took three personnel actions on 28 February 1972. To facilitate the 
merging of the staffs of the Board of Trustees and the Board of Higher 
Education, there had been agreement that Dr. West should be appointed 
vice president for planning and Mr. Kennedy should be appointed secre- 
tary of the university. The two were given legal status as members of the 
staff of the University of North Carolina. There had also been agreement 
that the position of vice president for student services and special pro- 
grams would be authorized as part of the administrative staff of the uni- 
versity. This action was taken, and it was expected that a black educator 
would receive this appointment. At this same meeting, President Friday 
announced that Vice President King would retire on 1 July and received 
approval for him to continue on a yearly basis as assistant to the president. 

The last personnel action of the Board of Trustees of the Consolidated 
University that related to the General Administration was taken at its final 
meeting on 22 May 1972. The position of vice president for academic af- 
fairs had been vacant since the resignation of Dr. Wells on 1 July 1971. 
Vice President King looked after the functions of this office along with 
his other duties during the year. President Friday submitted the name of 
Dr. Raymond H. Dawson, dean of the College of Arts and Sciences in 
the university at Chapel Hill, for this crucial appointment. He received 
the bachelor's degree from the College of the Ozarks, graduating summa 
cum laude, the master's degree from Vanderbilt University, and a Ph.D. in 
political science from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. 
Two awards for excellence in teaching were among his achievements. He 
was the author of numerous publications in his field. He spent a year as a 
Fulbright lecturer at King's College, University of London, and another 
as visiting professor at Columbia University. His distinction in teaching, 
scholarship, and administration was firmly established. The president en- 
thusiastically nominated him and observed, "The State is indeed fortu- 
nate in having such a dedicated and superior person to guide the academic 
growth and development of its University System." 

As the Consolidated University sped through the last six months of 
its history of forty-one years, the pages of its minutes continued to 
be sprinkled with traffic ordinances, bond resolutions, new faculty ap- 
pointments, retirees, deaths, memorial resolutions (one to Frank Porter 
Graham who died on 16 February 1972), and discussions of new pro- 
grams, resolutions of appreciation and congratulations, and much addi- 
tional minutiae. 

One of the interesting actions taken by the executive committee of 



[150] The Consolidated University of North Carolina 

the Board of Trustees on 5 May 1972, was as follows: "Be it resolved that 
the actions of the Board of Trustees of June 3, 1880 and January 26, 1882 
and all other actions of the Board of Trustees or its Executive Committee 
that have the general effect of requiring the distribution of Bibles to 
graduates of The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill are hereby 
rescinded effective immediately." 

This action was stimulated by Professor Daniel H. Pollitt, who was a 
member of Chancellor Taylor's Advisory Committee. Professor Pollitt 
raised the question of the constitutionality of a state university awarding 
Bibles to its graduates. The chancellor appointed a committee to investi- 
gate the problem, and it recommended the action taken by the Board of 
Trustees. By 1971 the logistics of delivering a Bible to each graduate may 
have been as important a consideration as the constitutionality of the 
practice. 

The last meeting of the Board of Trustees on 22 May 1972, was devoted 
to honoring retiring faculty, making the O. Max Gardner Award to 
Dr. Bruce John Zobel, Conger Distinguished Professor of Forestry at 
North Carolina State University, receiving a final report from President 
Friday, reviewing the 1973-75 budget requests, naming two buildings — 
the John C. Brauer Dental Education Building and the Walter Reece 
Berryhill Basic Sciences Building — and receiving a valedictory address 
from Governor Robert Scott. 

A resolution of appreciation for President and Mrs. William Friday was 
then adopted, and the Consolidated University passed into history, ex- 
cept that it became necessary on 23 June to have one more session of the 
executive committee to pass on bond resolutions and faculty appoint- 
ments. The last act of the executive committee as it sputtered out was the 
appointment of Mr. Jack Benjamin Levy as director of the Multiple Abili- 
ties Program at Wilmington. 



PART TWO 

The Multicampus University 
of North Carolina 



CHAPTER 



The Planning Period 



Soon after the adjournment of the special session of the legislature, 
Governor Scott notified the boards of trustees of the University of North 
Carolina and the other ten senior institutions that had been included in 
the restructuring that they were required to select the appropriate number 
of trustees from their respective boards to serve on the first Board of 
Governors and to act as a Planning Committee from I January through 
30 June 1972. He also notified the Board of Higher Education that it was 
eligible to select two nonvoting members who would sit with the Board 
of Governors until 30 June 1973. 

Immediately there was much speculation in the press over the composi- 
tion of the board, and there was some maneuvering for places on the 
panel. It was reported that the governor was interested in influencing the 
boards to elect members who would be favorable to his views during the 
period he had left to preside over the Planning Committee and the Board 
of Governors. His chairmanship would end on 31 December 1972. The 
Board of Trustees of East Carolina University was one of the institutions, 
it was alleged, from which he tried to secure the election of members 
favorable to his views. At the last moment, the term of Mrs. Terry Sanford 
expired, and he appointed his close ally, Mr. Horton Rountree, a member 
of the legislature who had done yeoman service for him during the re- 
structuring battle. It was believed that he favored at least one other person 
on the East Carolina Board; however, when the vote was taken on the 
election of members on 17 November 1971, three long-time members 
were chosen and Mr. Rountree fell one vote short of being elected. 

In the case of the University of North Carolina, he had hoped to place 
some of his partisans among the sixteen to be elected. He was able to 
control the procedure by which they were elected, but he lost his final 
round with the 100-member board. They omitted Senator Ralph Scott 
and others whom he favored and picked a slate that was almost solidly 
against him in the restructuring battle. In the heat of the discussion, 
it was reported in the Chapel Hill Weekly for 24 November 1971 that 
Mr. Cary C. Boshamer had exclaimed, "Unfortunately, Caesar had the 

[153] 



[154] The Multicampus University of North Carolina 

green stamps and he used them, and like another figure in history, instead 
of seeing Rome burn down, he is seeing the Consolidated University 
burn down." He called the governor to task for introducing politics into 
the election of members of the board. 

The other institutions proceeded rapidly to elect their members to the 
first governing board and by 21 December a complete roster of thirty- 
two had been chosen. It included four women — all from the old Univer- 
sity of North Carolina Board — and seven black members representing 
the five predominantly black institutions, all of which sent black trustees 
to the new board, among them Julius Chambers of Charlotte, who was 
hastily appointed /to the North Carolina Central University Board with 
the expectation that he would be placed on the governing board. The 
final roster of persons elected included the following: 

- From the University of North Carolina: Arch T. Allen, Ike F. 
Andrews, Victor S. Bryant, Lenox G. Cooper, William A. Dees, Jr., 
Jacob H. Froelich, Jr., Mrs. Howard Holderness, George Watts Hill, 
Sr., William A. Johnson, John R. Jordan, Jr., Robert B. Jordan III, 
Mrs. A. H. Lathrop, J. Aaron Prevost, Mrs. Richardson Preyer, 
Thomas J. White, Jr., and Mrs. George D. Wilson 

- From East Carolina University: Charles H. Larkins, Sr., Reginald 
McCoy, and W. W. Taylor, Jr. 

- From Western Carolina University: Wallace Hyde and E. J. 
Whitmire 

- From Appalachian State University: Dr. Hugh S. Daniel, Jr., and 
William B. Rankin 

- From Elizabeth City State University: Maceo A. Sloan 

- From Fayetteville State University: The Reverend Dr. E. B. Turner 

- From North Carolina Central University: Louis T. Randolph and 
Julius Chambers 

- From North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University: 
Howard Barnhill and Dr. Andrew A. Best 

- From Winston-Salem State University: Clark S. Brown 

- From Pembroke State University: W. Earl Britt 

- From The North Carolina School of the Arts: Hugh Cannon 

- From the North Carolina State Board of Higher Education: Watts 
Hill, Jr., and J. P. Huskins 



The Planning Period I 1 5 5] 

With this lineup Governor Scott had little hope of dominating activities 
of the board during his final year in office. 

The governor called a meeting of the Planning Committee to assemble 
at the Quail Roost Conference Center near Rougemont on 4 and 5 Janu- 
ary 1972. All members of the board were present. The first meeting 
on the evening of 4 January following dinner was a closed session. It 
was agreed by unanimous vote that President William Friday and Dr. 
Cameron West and their associates would be invited to join the meeting 
on Wednesday morning, 5 January. 

Governor Scott called on the group to determine the terms of service 
on the board for each member. He suggested that the sixteen members 
representing the six campuses of the University of North Carolina, the 
eleven members representing the five five-year regional institutions, 
and the four members representing the four four-year regional institu- 
tions meet separately and determine the term each member would serve. 
Each group determined the length of term by a method of its choice. The 
member from the North Carolina School of the Arts was chosen with the 
provision in the statute that his term would end 1 July 1973. Also, it was 
provided by statute that the terms of the two nonvoting members from 
the Board of Higher Education would terminate on the same date and 
would not be filled thereafter. 

Governor Scott reviewed the agenda for Wednesday morning and stated 
that it would be necessary to appoint committees for personnel, facilities, 
and the code. On Wednesday morning the Planning Committee recon- 
vened with all members present except Mr. Julius Chambers. Mr. Arch T. 
Allen was elected secretary of the Planning Committee to serve through 
30 June 1972. Members of the press and President Friday and Dr. West 
were present with certain members of their staffs. The result of the elec- 
tion for terms of membership on the Board of Governors conducted the 
previous evening was announced as follows: 

Term Expiring in 1973 Term Expiring in 1975 

Allen, Arch T. Brown, Clark S. 

Andrews, Ike F. Cooper, Lenox G. 

Best, Dr. Andrew A. Holderness, Mrs. Howard 

Cannon, Hugh Jordan, John R., Jr. 

Hill, Watts, Jr. (nonvoting) Prevost, J. Aaron 

Huskins, J. P. (nonvoting) Randolph, Louis T. 

Larkins, Charles H., Sr. Rankin, William B. 

Preyer, Mrs. L. Richardson Taylor, W. W.,Jr. 
White, Thomas J., Jr. 
Whitmire, E. J. 



[■56] 



The Multicampus University of North Carolina 



Term Expiring in igjj 

Barnhill, Howard C. 
Bryant, Victor S. 
Hill, George Watts, Sr. 
Hyde, Dr. Wallace N. 
Jordan, Robert B., Ill 
Lathrop, Mrs. A. H. 
McCoy, Reginald F. 
Sloan, Maceo A. 



Term Expiring in igyg 

Britt, W. Earl 
Chambers, Julius 
Daniel, Dr. Hugh, S.,Jr. 
Dees, William A., Jr. 
Froelich, Jacob H., Jr. 
Johnson, William A. 
Turner, Dr. E. B. 
Wilson, Mrs. George D. 



Governor Scott emphasized the necessity for appointing committees to 
begin work as quickly as possible, and he suggested that the Planning 
Committee elect three committees composed as follows: 



Committee on Personnel 

Governor Robert W Scott, 

Chairman 
William A. Dees, Jr. 
Robert B. Jordan III 
Reginald F. McCoy 
J. Aaron Prevost 
William B. Rankin 
Maceo A. Sloan 
E.J. Whitmire 
Mrs. George D. Wilson 



Committee on Facilities 

Thomas J. White, Jr., Chairman 

Dr. Andrew A. Best 

Lenox G. Cooper 

George Watts Hill, Sr. 

Wallace N. Hyde 

John R. Jordan, Jr. 

Dr. E. B. Turner 



Committee on the Code 

Victor S. Bryant, Chairman 

W. Earl Britt 

Hugh Cannon 

Julius Chambers 

Dr. Hugh S. Daniel, Jr. 

Mrs. Howard Holderness 

J. P. Huskins 

William A. Johnson 

Mrs. A. H. Lathrop 

W. W. Taylor, Jr. 



His recommendation was unanimously adopted, and it was agreed that 
these committees would serve at the pleasure of the Planning Committee 



The Planning Period I 1 57] 

and would adopt their own rules. After adopting Robert's Rules of Order 
for the Planning Committee and the respective committees, there was 
some discussion as to how materials developed by the committees would 
be made available to the full membership. It was decided to postpone a 
decision on this controversial topic until the next meeting. A schedule of 
meetings was agreed to with the next to be held at the General Admin- 
istration Building in Chapel Hill. Mr. John P. Kennedy, Jr., associate di- 
rector of the Board of Higher Education, was elected executive secretary 
of the Planning Committee. The governor announced that a transcript of 
the entire proceedings of the meeting would be prepared by a court re- 
porter in attendance and would be on file with the secretary and available 
to any board member. 

Governor Scott recognized Mr. John L. Sanders, director of the Insti- 
tute of Government, who gave a review of The Act to Consolidate the In- 
stitutions of Higher Learning in North Carolina. 

Mr. Sanders gave a detailed explanation of the act, going over it para- 
graph by paragraph and answering with great patience the questions that 
he was asked by members of the committee. His performance lasted more 
than two hours and was a classic illustration of a brilliant legal mind in 
action. Most of the information that he gave has already been mentioned 
and no attempt will be made here to repeat his performance. His state- 
ment was later reproduced and has been referred to many times since 
January 1972. 

Governor Scott had called on President Friday and Dr. West in a memo- 
randum dated 15 November 1971, to get together and give him sugges- 
tions for the six-months period between 1 January and 30 June 1972. He 
also wanted a tentative plan of organization for the staff, an agreement 
"upon at least, one well-qualified black educator to fill a top-level staff 
position in the vice-presidency category and at least one other black at 
perhaps a lesser level of responsibility," a written recommendation for 
titles and salaries of all staff members and any other items they felt might 
be pertinent. He made another suggestion that touched upon a very sen- 
sitive matter that had been discussed extensively in the press as follows: "a 
thoroughly discussed, understood and agreed-upon relationship between 
the President and the Executive Vice President. This understanding 
should be written out as clearly and concisely as possible. I consider this 
to be essential." This had reference to the following statement in the act 
having to do with the president's staff: "These staff members shall include 
a senior vice president. . ." This passage had been written into the act at 
the specific request of the Governor and was discussed in the press as the 
Governor's reward to Dr. West for his assistance in the restructuring 
battle. It was almost universally concluded that the presidency of the re- 
structured university would go to President Friday, and many of Dr. 



[i 5 8 



H 









4 fo'gim 



Q 



J r^t 



-d 









[159] 



^-C 



c 



- 1 iviN 



>^ 



>^ 



>HZZ^I 



>-C 



>-£ 






The University of North Carolina 

Merger of BHE and UNC staffs 
1 July 1972 



[160] The Multicampus University of North Carolina 

West's friends and supporters, especially among the members of the 
Board of Higher Education and some of the regional universities, thought 
that Dr. West should at least have a consolation award. This problem 
which had been generated by an attempt to use the act to establish a posi- 
tion for an individual, continued to nag the board as long as Dr. West 
remained on the staff. 

Dr. West and President Friday carried out the governor's admonition in 
part and gave him many valuable suggestions for the months ahead. They 
worked together harmoniously in making suggestions and recommenda- 
tions respecting the organization of the General Administration staff of 
the university. A beginning was made when President Friday asked the 
executive committee of the Board of Trustees of the Consolidated Uni- 
versity to recommend the authorization of the position of vice president 
for planning and to elect Dr. West to this position, and to reinstitute the 
position of secretary of the university and to elect Mr. John P. Kennedy, 
Jr., associate director of the Board of Higher Education, to that position. 
This arrangement was reviewed by the Planning Committee at its meet- 
ing on 21 January in Chapel Hill. President Friday and Dr. West had met 
with the Personnel Committee of the Planning Committee and presented 
an overview of a recommended organization structure with a discussion 
of the responsibilities of the principal administrative officers. President 
Friday showed a diagram of the current structure of the Consolidated 
University of North Carolina and indicated changes that would be desir- 
able in merging the staffs of the Board of Higher Education and the Con- 
solidated University, which was required by statute. The current staff pat- 
tern included the positions of vice presidents for academic affairs; finance; 
research and public service; administration; and institutional studies. The 
executive committee of the Consolidated University Board had recom- 
mended that the vice president for institutional studies be expanded to 
include planning and be known as vice president for planning; that the 
positions of vice president for administration be eliminated and the re- 
sponsibilities be assigned to the secretary of the university, which posi- 
tion had been reactivated by the Board of Trustees in December 1971; that 
legal affairs be assigned to the existing position of assistant to the presi- 
dent; and that a new position, vice president for admissions, financial aid, 
and special programs, be created. In the discussion that followed, it was 
easy to see that representatives of the former regional universities had 
some misgivings about the suggested arrangement. The questions illus- 
trated once again their fear of being swallowed up by the old Consoli- 
dated University; however, the arrangement was approved and it was 
agreed that Dr. West would come to Chapel Hill immediately as vice 
president for planning and that Mr. John P. Kennedy, Jr., would serve 



The Planning Period [ J 6i] 

as secretary of the university. Provision was made also to bring Mr. 
Kennedy and certain supporting staff from the Board of Higher Educa- 
tion office to Chapel Hill. These arrangements were contingent on the 
approval of the Board of Higher Education. Another motion was passed 
which approved the decisions of the University Executive Committee 
and recommended that the University of North Carolina Board of Trust- 
ees create the position of vice president for admissions, financial aid, and 
special programs. This was interpreted by many as meaning that the gen- 
eral administration of the restructured university would bear a close re- 
semblance to the General Administration of the Consolidated University. 

Mr. William A. Johnson, acting chairman of the Code Committee, re- 
ported that the section of the Code dealing with the responsibilities, du- 
ties, and functions of the principal officers should be completed by the 
February meeting of the Planning Committee. 

It was apparent from the report of the Facilities Committee, presented 
by Mr. Thomas J. White, Jr., chairman, that there was considerable dis- 
agreement within the Planning Committee over where the headquarters 
of the board should be located. Mr. White gave a very careful and objec- 
tive report. The views of many citizens and committee members had 
been consulted and he had gathered information about possible locations. 
He pointed out that the General Administration Building in Chapel Hill, 
which had just been completed at the approximate cost, including fur- 
nishings, of $1,135,000, had a gross area of finished space of 30,540 
square feet and unfinished space on the ground floor of 8, 100 square feet, 
which could be completed at an approximate cost of $149,000. He said 
that there were only two state-owned buildings available for reassignment 
with an area of thirty-eight to forty thousand square feet. One of these 
was the Eastern Carolina Sanatorium in Wilson and the other was the 
Western Carolina Sanatorium in Black Mountain. He stated that there 
was one three-story building in Raleigh that could be rented for $5.25 per 
square foot. After discussing the space available, Mr. White reported 
that the committee passed unanimously the following motion: "that the 
Committee on Facilities suggests for the consideration of the Planning 
Committee that the General Administration Building be utilized as a 
temporary meeting place of the Board of Governors from time to time as 
the Planning Committee may see fit." 

At the close of the meeting, a proposed schedule of further meetings 
and campus visits was announced. It was hoped to visit most of the cam- 
puses by Friday 23 June. When the Planning Committee next met on 
1 1 February, Dr. West and Mr. Kennedy had already moved their offices 
to Chapel Hill and the Board of Higher Education had designated Dr. 
J. Lemuel Stokes as acting chairman of that board to serve until its end on 



[162] The Multicampus University of North Carolina 

i July. Other members of the stafFof the Board of Higher Education were 
also planning to take part in the consideration of various problems that 
would have to be dealt with before I July. 

At the beginning of the meeting, Mr. White reported further for the 
Facilities Committee that the committee was still exploring all avenues in 
seeking a sound solution to the location of the offices of the Planning 
Committee and the Board of Governors. In answer to an inquiry about 
how long it would take to complete the General Administration Building, 
Mr. White estimated that it would take twelve months. Some members 
expressed the view that the sooner the two staffs were put together the 
better it would be. Mr. White stated that it was important to the people of 
the state "that every avenue be explored and every consideration given to 
each possible location." He emphasized that the institutions that had not 
been a part of the university had some apprehension that they might be 
"taken over" by Chapel Hill. He thought "the Planning Committee must 
demonstrate its openness and fairness and refrain from taking any pre- 
cipitous action." 

The Code Committee, it was reported by Mr. Johnson, had completed 
a fourth draft which it would mail to all the members of the Planning 
Committee with a request for suggestions or comments. Anyone who 
wanted to appear before the committee in person was offered the oppor- 
tunity. The committee expected to recommend the adoption of Chap- 
ter 5 at the March meeting of the Planning Committee. 

The report of the Personnel Committee was made by Mr. William A. 
Dees, Jr., at the request of the governor. The presidents and chancellors 
of the sixteen senior institutions, the chairman of the faculty of each in- 
stitution, and the president of the student body of each had been invited 
by the governor to appear before the Personnel Committee to discuss the 
role of the president of the university and his relationship with other offi- 
cials, and to make any recommendations of individuals for the position 
that they might have in mind. The committee had had four written 
responses. He mentioned the following three: a representative of the 
chancellors of the six institutions constituting the Consolidated Univer- 
sity, a representative of the faculty of East Carolina University, and the 
chairman of the Faculty Council of the University of North Carolina at 
Chapel Hill. Mr. Dees suggested that representatives of the sixteen in- 
stitutions should again be invited. The committee expected to recom- 
mend a person for the office of president at the March meeting of the 
Planning Committee. 

By the time the Planning Committee assembled at the University of 
North Carolina at Greensboro on 17 March 1972 there had been much 
speculation in the press concerning the presidency of the new system. 
Most of it centered around the likelihood that President Friday would be 



The Planning Period [163] 

the choice. There was evidently some grumbling on the part of the gover- 
nor respecting President Friday. They had been antagonists in the restruc- 
turing battle, the governor had hoped to have his own way with restruc- 
turing during the planning period, and his failure to command a majority 
of the Planning Committee had frustrated this objective. When the com- 
mittee interviewed President Friday, it was reported in the News and Ob- 
server for 18 March 1972, that he was asked point-blank by the governor 
whether he would appoint Dr. Cameron West senior vice president. 
President Friday refused to make a commitment — just as he had refused, 
when originally elected president of the Consolidated University sixteen 
years earlier, to commit himself with respect to the appointment of spe- 
cific persons. He agreed, of course, to carry out the intent of the restruc- 
turing act that the staffs of the university and the Board of Higher Educa- 
tion be merged. When President Friday left the meeting of the Personnel 
committee, the News and Observer reported that it had learned that the 
governor told the group that he had "a gut feeling that Cameron West will 
not be named Senior Vice President if it is left up to Friday." After consid- 
erable discussion, the committee adjourned with the agreement that at 
the next session of the Planning Committee Mr. Friday would be named 
president of the university, and the members of the group were asked to 
urge him to appoint Dr. West senior vice president. 

At the 17 March meeting of the Planning Committee, Mr. Victor 
Bryant, chairman of the Code Committee, asked Mr. Richard Robinson 
to present the report of the committee on the preparation of Chapter 5. 
Mr. Bryant stated that the committee had voted unanimously to recom- 
mend the fourth draft of the chapter for adoption. The motion was 
approved unanimously and the chapter which dealt with the officers 
of the university became the first section of the Code to be formally 
approved. 

Next there was a report of the Facilities Committee by Mr. Thomas J. 
White. He moved "that the general headquarters of The University of 
North Carolina be established in the General Administration Building 
and that at least three years' experience be gained in the use of the General 
Administration Building as such headquarters during which time an 
evaluation of that facility shall be maintained and that the unfinished por- 
tion of the General Administration Building be completed at the earliest 
possible date." The motion was seconded, and a hot debate ensued when 
Mr. Wallace Hyde made a substitute motion that would have called for 
the appointment of another committee to make the decision after 1 July. 
The substitute motion was defeated by a vote of 17-11, split along the 
lines of the Consolidated University, with one exception, and the re- 
gional universities. The motion was then approved by a voice vote. The 
governor and Mr. Friday both agreed that it was good to have a debate on 



[164] The Multicampus University of North Carolina 

the location issue. The governor said that he agreed with Mr. Hyde in his 
opinion that the Chapel Hill location would be permanent until such time 
as the existing building was no longer adequate. 

Governor Scott, as chairman of the personnel committee, reported that 
the committee unanimously recommended "that Dr. William Clyde Fri- 
day, President of the present University of North Carolina, be elected 
President of the sixteen-campus University of North Carolina, and that 
he assume the responsibilities of this office July 1, 1972." In the course of 
the discussion President Friday's long record as a student and official of 
the university was recounted, and some of the national appointments that 
he had received were listed. Among them, it was stated, "he is President 
of the prestigous Association of American Universities which is com- 
prised of the top forty-eight institutions of higher learning of the United 
States and Canada. He is a member of the Carnegie Commission on the 
Future of Higher Education, has served on the President's Task Force on 
Education and has been Chairman of the President's Commission on 
White House Fellows." The contribution of his wife, Ida Howell Friday 
of Lumberton, was also mentioned, and the fact that they had three 
daughters was pointed out. Mr. Friday was elected unanimously. When 
he appeared, Governor Scott greeted him with a hearty handshake which 
seemed to signify that the restructuring battle was forgotten. 

It is of interest that the Planning Committee then paused for prayer 
in memory of former University of North Carolina President Frank 
Graham, who had died on 16 February. He was described in the prayer by 
board member Dr. Andrew Best as a "giant oak who had fallen." 

This was noted almost universally as the most memorable meeting of 
the committee. It had adopted a code chapter governing the officers of 
the university that was based in part on the Code of the Consolidated 
University, it had selected as its headquarters the new General Admin- 
istration Building of the Consolidated University, and it had elected as 
president of the new sixteen-campus university the president of the Con- 
solidated University. 

The Planning Committee held three more meetings before it began its 
duties as the Board of Governors. Mr. Bryant reported on the Code at 
each of these meetings stating on 23 June that his committee had received 
166 suggestions and comments on a draft of the Code sent to the Planning 
Committee members, chancellors and the president; however, it did not 
complete its work before 1 July. Mr. Bryant stated that the committee 
"does not propose to sacrifice quality for promptness." The Planning 
Committee was able to visit the university at Wilmington, Fayetteville 
State, and Pembroke after one of its meetings in Wilmington; it visited 
Appalachian State on 26 May, and held its last meeting at Chapel Hill on 



The Planning Period [^s] 

23 June. The committee had a fairly lively discussion on the information 
that should be furnished to the full committee by the separate commit- 
tees. Finally, Mr. Bryant suggested as a compromise, which would be 
recommended in the Code, that all members of the Board of Governors 
would have the right to attend any committee meeting; advance notice of 
committee meetings would be given to members of the Board of Gover- 
nors; and any committee actions would be reported immediately to the 
individual board members. This recommendation was adopted, and the 
apprehensions of those who feared secret committees were quieted. 

At various times President Friday made detailed reports on plans for 
completion of the General Administration Building, on staff mergers, on 
the preparation of the budget, on new programs submitted by campuses, 
on faculty salaries, enrollment growth, and student tuition and fees. He 
also reported on the meeting of the chancellors who would form the new 
administrative council; the organization of a proposed faculty assembly, 
which would represent all sixteen of the institutions; and the expansion 
of the graduate council to include all of the campuses that offered gradu- 
ate work. 

At the meeting of the Planning Committee on 26 May in Boone, it 
used its newly acquired power to fix the salaries of chancellors and prin- 
cipal administrative officials. The sixteen new chancellors and their busi- 
ness managers all received raises. Ten members of the General Admin- 
istration staff were also recommended for raises. At the last meeting in 
Chapel Hill on 23 June 1972 seventeen former members of the adminis- 
trative staff of the Board of Higher Education who were merged into the 
staff of the General Administration also received raises. Mr. Friday an- 
nounced at this last meeting that a committee had been working on the 
biennial budget and that all new programs submitted by the campuses 
and processed by the Board of Higher Education up to and including the 
last meeting of the board on 16 June would be processed in the budget 
request to come before the Board of Governors. Those requested later 
would be postponed until action could be taken on a new, long-range plan. 
Agieement had been reached on the enrollment growth that had been es- 
timated for each of the institutions during the next biennium and that 
would be used by the Board of Governors in formulating budget re- 
quests; thus, a moratorium on new degree programs was proposed for 
later action. 

President Friday also informed the Planning Committee on 23 June 
that he and President Jenkins of East Carolina University, after discussion 
with Vice President Monroe of East Carolina and with officials of the 
medical schools of Duke University, Wake Forest, and the University of 
North Carolina at Chapel Hill, had agreed that a special committee of the 



[i66] The Multicampus University oj North Carolina 

Board of Governors should be created to study the request for the "fund- 
ing of a second year of medical education at East Carolina University and 
to make recommendations to the Board." The committee was authorized 
and the governor as chairman was requested to appoint it. 

President Friday reminded the committee that the restructuring act re- 
quired the Planning Committee "to prepare a plan for the merging of the 
staff positions o^the Board of Higher Education and of the General Ad- 
ministration, said plan to become effective July I." He presented to the 
committee an organization chart that had been prepared after many con- 
ferences with all of the different groups involved. (See Organization 
Chart earlier in this chapter.) He requested that the Planning Committee 
approve this proposed merger. The recommendation approved after a dis- 
cussion emphasized the need for filling vacant staff positions with some 
members of minority races in order that the staff more accurately repre- 
sent the proportion of the minority to the total population of the state. 
The motion carried unanimously. 

One of the activities that the Board of Governors received from the 
Board of Higher Education was the Center for the Renewal of Higher 
Education. It had been created the previous year to encourage institutions 
of the state to revitalize their curricula. The director of the center, Dr. 
John R. Satterfield, had negotiated with foundations and the federal gov- 
ernment for grants totaling $450,000 to finance, under the aegis of the 
center, a three-year Institute for Undergraduate Curricula Reform. The 
institute was already operating a summer program at Cullowhee. Its ob- 
jectives and activities were explained by Dr. West. 

Mr. Kennedy announced that the Boards of Trustees for the six institu- 
tions that constituted the Consolidated University had been selected and 
were in the process of organizing. He reviewed the dates that had been set 
for future meetings of the board, with the first one scheduled for 7 July at 
the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. Near the end of the meet- 
ing, Dr. Harold Delaney, acting vice chancellor for university colleges, 
State University of New York, was introduced by President Friday. It was 
no secret that Dr. Delaney was under consideration for a vice presidency 
on the staff of the General Administration of the Board of Governors. 

Near the end of the last session of the Planning Committee, Mr. Dees 
inquired of the secretary, Mr. Allen, whether he had checked the statute 
to be sure that the Planning Committee had complied with all its require- 
ments. Mr. Allen informed the committee that there were seven require- 
ments "and that all had been complied with." With this assurance, the 
Planning Committee passed into history. 



CHAPTER 10 

The Beginning of the 
Sixteen-Campus University 



The Board of Governors of The University of North Carolina held its 
first meeting 7 July 1972, on the campus of the University of North 
Carolina at Charlotte. Its meeting place on the top floor of the new li- 
brary tower furnished a beautiful view of the surrounding countryside 
and of the city of Charlotte eight miles away. The meeting was called 
to order by Governor Robert W. Scott, who presented the Reverend 
Dr. E. B. Turner for the opening prayer. The Reverend Dr. Turner read 
Solomon's Prayer for Wisdom from the Second Book of Chronicles and 
then gave the invocation. The oath of office was administered to members 
of the board by Judge Fred H. Hasty, senior resident superior court judge 
in Mecklenburg County. Three members were absent. The board then 
settled down to initiate the restructured university. 

If the members of the Board of Governors could have foreseen the 
number and complexity of the problems it would be called on to deal 
with in the years ahead, they would have been even more impressed with 
Dr. Turner's reading of Solomon's Prayer for Wisdom. 

As the total headcount enrollment of students in the sixteen constituent 
institutions of the university increased from 87,631 in 1972 to 125,274 in 
1985, it brought many problems involving expanding facilities, addi- 
tional faculty, overcrowding in some institutions and under-enrollment in 
others, inability to achieve an appropriate racial mix in most of the in- 
stitutions, problems involving out-of-state enrollment, the tendency of 
the proportion of female enrollment to increase more rapidly than male 
enrollment in some institutions, and, finally, the prospect that enrollment 
would reach a steady state and perhaps even a declining state for a period 
of years. 

Another group of problems clustered around the budget as the 
state-appropriated funds increased from $186,624,286 in 1971 — 72 to 
$664, 184,530 in 1985-86. Among these were the necessity for designing 
a new way of dealing with the budget for senior higher education; en- 

[167] 



[i68] The Multicampus University of North Carolina 

hancing the historically black institutions in faculties and other person- 
nel; equalizing salaries in the several categories of institutions, which 
were adopted for the classification of the sixteen constituent institutions, 
and many other problems involving salary increases; funds for the main- 
tenance and operation of the constituent institutions; and such special 
needs as those of the libraries, the laboratories, and new operations such 
as the East Carolina Medical School and the Veterinary School at Raleigh. 
Over the next decade inflation of the national economy complicated the 
budgeting process. During this period, the Board of Governors was also 
responsible for administering capital improvements financed from state- 
appropriated funds, self-liquidating bonds, and other sources of over 
$963,000,000. 

The legislative directive that the Board of Governors plan a coordi- 
nated system of higher education in North Carolina involved an enor- 
mous amount of study, investigation, analysis, and publication on the 
part of the Committee on Educational Planning, Policies and Programs 
and its staff. Beginning in 1976, three large annual long-range plans were 
produced, each one supposedly running for five years but to be sup- 
planted by a yearly overlapping revision. By 1978 the objective of a yearly 
long-range plan gave way to one every two years, and subsequently three 
additional long-range plans on a more modest scale were produced. 
These plans were so searching and far-reaching that no facet of any of the 
programs of the sixteen constituent institutions escaped thorough and 
critical examination. 

The personnel problem of the board was difficult to envisage. Every 
teaching appointment involving tenure had to have the approval of the 
board. In addition, every administrative appointment at the level of a 
dean or higher had to have the approval of the board. The salary ranges 
for all ranks had to be set by the board. These requirements involved in 
the course of a year literally hundreds of actions affecting individuals. 

There were many other problems that arose to perplex the board. 
Among these were relationships with the private colleges in North Caro- 
lina, the East Carolina School of Medicine, the long and disturbing con- 
troversy resulting from the Adams Case and activities initiated by the fed- 
eral government under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the decision about 
building a veterinary school at Raleigh, the attempt to improve nursing 
education and legal education in the historically black institutions, the 
decision not to establish a third law school, the relationships with the 
Faculty Assembly, and many other issues that developed suddenly and 
without warning. Higher education, by the time the Board of Governors 
assumed responsibility for it in North Carolina, had become a highly 
litigious operation. The many relationships with the federal government 



The Beginning of the Sixteen-Campus University [ J 69] 

required legal counsel. The frequent actions brought against the univer- 
sity by those who alleged that they had not been given their rights, both 
faculty and students, were numerous and time-consuming. 

In view of all the perplexing duties and issues that faced the Board of 
Governors, it was fortunate to have a number of positive assets from the 
beginning. Each of the thirty-two members had previously been a mem- 
ber of an institutional board of trustees and was to some extent experi- 
enced in the governance of academic institutions. Sixteen of the mem- 
bers had had experience in governing a multicampus institution. These 
factors were helpful in guiding the new multicampus university and 
in understanding the problems faced by local boards of trustees. During 
the six-month planning period, the members of the board drawn from 
the institutional boards had learned to work together as a team and to 
respect the special abilities among the membership. 

The Board of Governors had at its command an experienced staff with 
knowledge of the governance problems confronted by a multicampus 
university. At the head of its staff it had a president with sixteen years of 
experience with a multicampus organization and with a national reputa- 
tion that brought him into contact with all of the successful multicampus 
universities in the United States. Furthermore, he had had wide experi- 
ence in dealing with both the state and the federal governments. The chief 
academic officer of the university was widely respected by the faculties of 
the sixteen constituent institutions and had an established reputation in 
the academic community throughout the country. The chief finance offi- 
cer was thoroughly familiar with the budget system of North Carolina 
and had extensive experience in managing the financial affairs of a multi- 
campus university. The fact that he and his staff could put together the 
first budget for the sixteen constituent institutions in one-third of the 
time ordinarily required for such a complicated operation was a testi- 
mony to the advantage that the board had in this area of its responsibility. 
The planning officer had had extensive experience in collecting and ana- 
lyzing the type of data needed for making administrative and educational 
decisions for a state system. The second level of staff was also a valuable 
resource for the Board of Governors in the years ahead. 

The Board of Governors was fortunate indeed to have as a resource in 
establishing its mode of governance an accumulated reservoir of rules, 
regulations, traditions, experiences, and practices going back to the late 
eighteenth century. Some of this had already been embodied in the Code 
of the University of North Carolina and was available for adaptation to the 
new and expanded university. Furthermore, there was on the Board of 
Governors a wealth of legal talent to assist in drafting and later perfecting 
a code that would fit the new circumstances. 



[170] The Multkampus University of North Carolina 

Finally, the Board of Governors had at its disposal a new and fully- 
equipped General Administration Building that was well adapted to the 
needs of its staff. In addition, there was comfortable meeting space for the 
board and for its committee activities. The building was far enough re- 
moved from the university at Chapel Hill to avoid conflict with the ac- 
tivities of the^campus; however, it was near enough to use the mainte- 
nance and other services of the campus that were essential for efficient 
operation. Furthermore, the environment of a major research university 
was an advantage in attracting and holding a superior staff. Any sugges- 
tion that the headquarters should be moved faded away in a short time. 

Much of the initial work of the Board of Governors had been in prepa- 
ration during the planning period. The merging of the staff of the Board 
of Higher Education and the General Administration of the Consolidated 
University, which involved the president and twenty-five other adminis- 
trative positions, was approved. Mr. Victor S. Bryant reported for the 
Code Committee and recommended to the board for adoption a code of 
nine chapters. Chapter 6, which would deal with academic freedom, re- 
sponsibility, and tenure, was postponed for further study and consulta- 
tion with faculty, students, administrators, and other interested persons. 
Mr. Bryant also stated: "The Code Committee had articulated the basic 
philosophy of the new law and had in no instance attempted to rewrite 
the law. Much of the Code was taken directly from the General Statutes. 
Portions of it were taken from The Code of The University of North Caro- 
lina as it existed prior to July i." 

The several chapters of the Code adopted at this time were as follows: 

I. Establishment, Incorporation and Composition of 
The University of North Carolina 

II. The Board of Governors 

III. Committees of Board of Governors 

IV. Boards of Trustees 

V. Officers of the University 

VI. (Reserved) 

VII. Finances, Property and Obligations 
VIII. Matters Involving Nonpublic Institutions 

IX. Miscellaneous Provisions 

In describing the composition of the university, the Code contained the 
following important statement: "The University of North Carolina shall 
constitute a single, multicampus University composed of the following 



The Beginning of the Sixteen-Campus University I 1 ? 1 ] 

constituent institutions. ..." Then it listed the sixteen by name. The in- 
troductory statement emphasized the nature of the university and indi- 
cated that it would be run as a single university and not as a federation of 
governmental bureaus. 

Mr. Bryant also included in his report another item entitled "Delega- 
tion of Duty and Authority to Boards of Trustees," which was to be a 
part of a policies manual and would supplement Chapter 4 of the Code. 
This document applied uniformly to all sixteen campuses; however, uni- 
formity was not required in the restructuring act. This was an exceed- 
ingly important document in which the Board of Governors delegated to 
the Board of Trustees of the constituent institutions certain duties and 
powers relating to academic and administrative personnel; academic pro- 
gram; academic degrees; honorary degrees, awards, and distinctions; 
budget administration; property and buildings; endowments and trust 
funds; admissions; tuition, fees, and deposits; student financial aid; stu- 
dent services; student conduct, activities, and government; intercollegiate 
athletics; traffic and parking regulations; campus security; and auxiliary 
enterprises, utilities, and miscellaneous facilities. 

The exercise of these powers and duties was, of course, subject to 
limitations placed on them by the Board of Governors, and they varied 
greatly in the extent of the authority given to the boards. On some 
matters they were merely enjoined to advise the chancellor; on others 
they were given the authority to act. The latter was especially true in the 
case of student conduct and intercollegiate athletics. 

The Board of Governors would have been involved so much with the 
internal administrative problems of each of the sixteen constituent in- 
stitutions that it would not have been able to function effectively had it 
not been for its authority to delegate some details of administration to the 
chancellors and local boards of trustees. Many persons who have studied 
the operation of the University of North Carolina under the Board of 
Governors believe that the arrangement of having an overall governing 
board to set policies and deal with the problems of general concern to all 
and of having a local board for each of the institutions responsible to the 
governing board is the unique contribution of the North Carolina plan to 
multicampus university governance. 

Virtually every action of the board during the first few months of its 
operation established a precedent or represented a new and untried ad- 
ministrative adventure. Some of the problems that emerged very early, in 
addition to completing the Code, were as follows: 

1. A committee structure to deal with matters having to do with the 
budget, personnel, long-range planning, and the governance of the 
board and the constituent institutions 



[172] The Multicampus University of North Carolina 

2. Relationships with private colleges and the administration of aid to 
private colleges 

3. The sale of the utilities system owned by the University of North 

Carolina at Chapel Hill 
/ 

4. Relationships with the General Assembly 

5. Tuition and fees for both in-state and out-of-state students 

6. The East Carolina University proposal for expansion of its medical 
program 

7. Institutional enrollment levels and provisions for allocating funds 

8. The proposal to establish a school of veterinary medicine 

9. Relationships with the Civil Rights Division of the United States 
Department of Health, Education and Welfare 

At the first meeting of the board on 7 July, Mr. William A. Dees, Jr., 
was elected vice chairman of the board; Mr. Howard C. Barnhill, secre- 
tary; and Mr. John P. Kennedy, Jr., a member of the staff, assistant secre- 
tary. At this same meeting Dr. Harold Delaney was chosen to fill the posi- 
tion of vice president for student services and special programs. He was 
acting vice chancellor for university colleges in the State University of 
New York. Dr. Delaney had previously been a member of the faculty of 
chemistry at North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University 
and North Carolina Central University. 

On 7 July, President Friday pointed out the need for three ad hoc com- 
mittees to deal with urgent problems in the fields of budget, personnel, 
and long-range planning. The budget area was especially critical since the 
biennial budget for 1973-75 had to be prepared and transmitted to Raleigh 
within two months. This was a tremendous task for the office of Vice 
President Joyner and other members of the General Administration who 
would have to review in a brief period of time sixteen separate budgets. 
The governor agreed that in view of the shortage of time, he would name 
the Budget Committee immediately and name only the chairmen of the 
other two committees, with the members to be named at the next meet- 
ing of the board. For the Budget Committee he chose Mr. J. P. Huskins, 
chairman, Mrs. Elise R. Wilson, and Messrs. Barnhill, Britt, Cannon, 
Cooper, and Froelich. He also named Mr. Maceo A. Sloan chairman of 
the Personnel Committee and Dr. Hugh S. Daniel, Jr., chairman of the 
Committee on Long Range Planning. On 14 August, he named eight 
members of the board to each of the committees for which he had chosen 
the chairmen previously. 



The Beginning of the Sixteen-Campus University [ x 73] 

In the five weeks since the previous meeting, the staff of the General 
Administration had been working day and night to prepare a biennial 
budget which had been examined by the Budget Committee and was 
proposed by Mr. Huskins for approval by the board. His report covered 
three parts: (i) the base budget of each of the sixteen institutions for con- 
tinuing their operations at the present levels of support; (2) a budget for 
salary increases for academic personnel based on five percent a year to be 
applied on the individual campuses as merit increases with an additional 
$500,000 as a special fund for faculty improvement; and (3) a change bud- 
get presented in a schedule of priorities and without reference to particu- 
lar institutions. 

These priority listings were arrived at through many conferences with 
institutional representatives. The budget was amended to add $1.5 mil- 
lion for the biennium to be used for student financial aid. There was gen- 
eral agreement that the budget represented a great achievement consider- 
ing the time available, and it was expected that the budget process would 
be refined and adopted in subsequent years after more time for study and 
investigation. 

At the 14 August meeting, President Friday nominated and the board 
elected the following presidents to the statutorily required Advisory 
Committee of Private College Presidents: Norman Wiggins, Campbell 
College; Robert Davis, Brevard College; Arthur Wenger, Atlantic Chris- 
tian College; Prezell Robinson, St. Augustine's College; Raymond Bost, 
Lenoir Rhyne College; Ralph Scales, Wake Forest College; Terry Sanford, 
Duke University; and Samuel Spencer, Davidson College. 

At the next three meetings of the board, they discussed and settled a 
number of issues. Among them was an amendment to define the word 
student for the private colleges that had been given aid for needy North 
Carolina students. It was decided that the same criteria would be used 
to differentiate between in-state and out-of-state students as had been 
adopted by the General Assembly to guide public institutions in assessing 
a different rate of tuition for in-state and out-of-state students. In the be- 
ginning the definition involved in-state residency for a period of twelve 
months and, in determining this, residency in an institution of higher 
education could not be counted. This sounded simple, but over the years 
a manual of over fifty pages was accumulated to assist in interpreting the 
regulation. 

The Long-Range Planning Committee under Dr. Hugh S. Daniel, Jr., 
was constituted and Dr. Daniel made a report on his ideas prior to a 
meeting of the committee. Later in 1973 it began to assemble ideas and 
suggestions for the massive task that was before it. 

The various committees reported from time to time, but little progress 



[174] The Multicampus University oj North Carolina 

was made in the first six months by any except the Budget Committee. 
The president was authorized on 10 November 1972 to enter into con- 
tracts with private colleges that were entitled to aid under the action of 
the 1 97 1 Legislative Assembly. 

The November meeting was the last at which the governor would pre- 
side over the board. An election was held and Mr. William A. Dees, Jr., 
was selected chairman of the board. This left a vacancy in the vice- 
chairmanship, to which Mr. W. Earl Britt was elected. Governor Scott 
gave a gracious and congratulatory address to the board, and he was sa- 
luted for his contribution to the restructuring. 

At the January meeting of the board, Mr. George M. Wood was admin- 
istered the oath of office as a new member replacing Mr. Ike F. Andrews 
who had been elected to the United States Congress. At this meeting the 
Board of Governors had its first experience with approving a bond issue 
and its first experience with discussing tuition rates and a special rate for 
nonresident students with special talents. They also took a stand against 
the board hearing appeals from students who had grievances, remanding 
such hearings to local boards. 

A procedure for electing institutional boards of trustees was mentioned 
and Chairman Dees was authorized to appoint a committee to recom- 
mend a procedure to the board. At the next meeting on 9 February 1973 
Mr. Britt, chairman of the committee, requested suggestions from mem- 
bers of the Board of Governors concerning procedures, and he expressed 
the hope that he could present the recommendations of the committee to 
the board at its next meeting. At the March meeting the committee was 
requested by Chairman Dees to continue its service and bring a slate of 
trustee nominees to the board. They were unable to prepare a slate by the 
May meeting and reported that they were trying to coordinate their ap- 
pointments with the appointments of the governor. On 8 June they were 
still not ready to make a report, and the election had to be held before 
1 July 1973. The chairman called a special meeting for 27 June at which 
Mr. W. Earl Britt reported that some three hundred formal nominations 
had been submitted for 128 places. Each nomination had been carefully 
considered and an attempt had been made to present a slate for each 
board, which, when considered with persons to be appointed by the gov- 
ernor, would constitute a well-balanced board. It would take into account 
all of the relevant factors including the need for geographic distribution, 
for distribution by age, race, and sex, and for assuring some continuity 
of experience on the board. The election was then held, and for each in- 
stitution four persons were elected for four-year terms and four persons 
for two-year terms, a total of 128 individuals. 

Mr. Kennedy was instructed to urge chancellors to have organizational 
meetings of their board at an early date. 



The Beginning of the Sixteen-Campus University [175] 

Other responsibilities and issues discussed by the board at its first seven 
meetings included aid to private colleges, supplemental budget requests 
for presentation to the General Assembly, enrollment levels for the dif- 
ferent institutions, the transfer of funds from under-enrolled to over- 
enrolled institutions, student aid, relations with the General Assembly in 
1973, the budget of Memorial Hospital, the Code Committee, and the 
Committee on the Sale of Utilities. 

On 14 August 1972 President Friday recommended that the Code 
Committee be reactivated and asked to begin work on Chapter 6, which 
would deal with "academic freedom and tenure." Mr. Bryant, chairman 
of the Code Committee, was requested by Chairman Dees to begin 
working on the missing chapter as soon as possible. The faculty and stu- 
dents of the constituent institutions had been promised full opportunity 
to participate in the development of Chapter 6. Over the next few months 
Mr. Bryant regularly reported the committee's progress. It met on 9 No- 
vember 1972 and heard from twenty-two persons, including the chancel- 
lors and some chief academic officers. Two months later the committee 
heard from representatives of the newly organized Faculty Assembly, li- 
brarians, student body presidents, the Graduate and Professional Student 
Federation, the American Association of University Professors, and the 
Daily Tar Heel editor. On 16 and 17 February 1973, the Code Committee 
met with others who had asked to be heard, and on 1 5 March Mr. Bryant 
told the board that he hoped to have Chapter 6 ready for a vote at the 
April meeting. At the 13 April meeting Mr. Bryant and Dr. Dawson ex- 
plained the main provisions of Chapter 6, and it was adopted after a 
minor amendment. A resolution was adopted calling for each institution 
to make a study of tenure policies and to submit its recommended poli- 
cies to the president and the Board of Governors. Chairman Dees ex- 
pressed special appreciation to Mr. Bryant and Dr. Dawson for their hard 
and productive work. The committee was asked to turn its attention to 
the question of committees of the Board of Governors and also to assist 
the president in reviewing tenure proposals. 

The new Chapter 6 was entitled "Academic Freedom, Rights and Re- 
sponsibilities" and was organized around the following sections: Freedom 
and Responsibility in the University Community; Academic Freedom and 
Responsibility of Faculty; Academic Tenure; Due Process in the Suspen- 
sion or Discharge of Faculty; and Students' Rights and Responsibilities. 

The Code required each of the constituent institutions to enact policies 
and regulations governing academic tenure for faculty including perma- 
nent tenure. In addition to the action on Chapter 6, Section 903 of the 
Code, Equal Employment Opportunity, was deleted and Section 103, 
"Equality of Opportunity in the University" was added. Additions and 
changes in the Code were made from time to time over the next decade. 



[176] The Multicampus University of North Carolina 

On 4 September 1973 a revision of Chapter 3, Section 301, established 
the following standing committees: Budget and Finance; Educational 
Planning, Policies and Programs; Personnel and Tenure; and University 
Governance. Their duties and responsibilities were set forth in the sub- 
section establishing each committee. After this action, all proposals for 
changing the Code were referred to the Committee on University Gover- 
nance, which sometimes joined with other committees in recommending 
changes. The work of the four committees is discussed in Chapter 13. 

The disposition of the utilities system of the University of North Caro- 
lina at Chapel Hill, including electric, telephone, water, and sewerage fa- 
cilities, had been proposed by a commission authorized by the General 
Assembly during the turbulent session of 1971. Governor Scott ap- 
pointed Senator John Church chairman of the commission. Vice Chancel- 
lor for Business and Finance Joseph Eagles was convinced that the time 
had come for the university at Chapel Hill to get out of the utilities busi- 
ness and succeeded in getting the issue before the General Assembly. The 
report of the commission came while the restructured University of 
North Carolina was in its first month of operation. The Board of Trustees 
at Chapel Hill, which was also just beginning, recommended to the 
Board of Governors that it approve the Church Commission's recommen- 
dations in full and that the Board of Governors: "delegate to the Board of 
Trustees of The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill the authority 
assigned to the former Executive Committee of the former Board of 
Trustees of The University of North Carolina under Section 5 of Chapter 
723 of the 1 97 1 Session Laws, with the understanding that appropriate 
attention will be given to the interests of the State of North Carolina, the 
University at Chapel Hill, the employees of the Utilities Division of the 
University and the customers of the Utilities Division." 

On motion of Mr. George Watts Hill, Sr., President Friday's recom- 
mendation that a committee be appointed to meet with a committee from 
the Board of Trustees of the University at Chapel Hill, representatives of 
the chancellor's staff and of the president's staff was authorized on 14 Au- 
gust 1972. Governor Scott appointed Mr. William A. Dees, Jr., chair- 
man, and Messrs. Arch T. Allen, Victor S. Bryant, George Watts Hill, 
Sr., William A. Johnson, J. Aaron Prevost, and Thomas J. White, Jr. 

The committee recommended on 8 September that the report be 
adopted with a reservation to the effect that the Church Commission 
consider as an alternative to selling the utilities the creation of a university- 
owned corporation. This change was inserted after Mr. George Watts 
Hill, Sr., had made an eloquent and spirited appeal for the adoption of a 
plan that would not remove the utilities from the ownership of the uni- 
versity and, as he argued, require the patrons of the utilities that had been 



The Beginning of the Sixteen-Campus University [ l ll] 

built on a "pay as you go" basis to pay for them over again in increased 
rates to compensate companies that might purchase the utilities. Mr. Hill 
also argued that the Board of Governors should not delegate to the Board 
of Trustees the responsibility for disposing of the utilities with a value of 
over $40,000,000 when under ordinary circumstances the Board of Gov- 
ernors would take jurisdiction over a transaction involving any amount in 
excess of $50,000. The real issue was whether the utilities should be re- 
tained as endowment for the university at Chapel Hill, or sold and the 
proceeds used for endowment or other purposes. The business manage- 
ment at Chapel Hill preferred the latter. The risk that the General Assem- 
bly might want to share in the proceeds was not seriously considered. 

In the course of the discussion, Mr. Dees, chairman of the commit- 
tee, was asked where the final authority to decide the disposition of the 
utilities would lie if the board should vote to adopt the report of the com- 
mittee. According to the minutes, he replied: "If the report were adopted, 
the matter would go back to the Church Commission, which would then 
consider again the various possibilities and arrive at a plan for the disposi- 
tion of the utilities. This plan would be presented to the Board of Trustees 
of The University at Chapel Hill. If approved by that Board, it would go 
to the Governor and Council of State for final action. The matter would 
not come back to the Board of Governors. Any receipts from the disposi- 
tion would go to the University at Chapel Hill." The report with the pro- 
posed amendment was adopted. 

The Church Commission, according to a report by Mr. Dees, follow- 
ing the receipt of the recommendations made by the Board of Governors, 
decided to go into the question of the best way of divesting the uni- 
versity of the utilities once more. The Commission was considering, he 
said, among other possibilities, the creation of one or more regional or 
university-owned authorities. Mr. Hill, Sr., reported to the Board of 
Governors on 12 January 1973 that he had attended a meeting of the 
Church Commission on 27 November 1972. An opinion of Assistant At- 
torney General Lake was read which stated that the Church Commission 
"does not have the authority under Chapter 723 to undertake further 
studies into the disposition of University utilities . . . after the Commis- 
sion has made its study and submitted final report and recommendations 
to the Board of Governors for approval within the time specified in 
said act." 

Senator Ralph Scott, a member of the commission, then presented a 
resolution authorizing Chairman Church to appoint committees to pro- 
ceed with negotiations for the sale, lease, rental transfer, or to "consider 
any additional or alternate plans including an authority or University- 
owned corporation which may be proposed to the Commission" to report 



[178] The Multicampus University of North Carolina 

not later than 1 March 1973 and to develop a prospectus for disposition of 
the various utilities. Senator Scott's resolution was approved by a vote of 
6-5. Two committees, one for water and sewerage facilities, and the other 
for electric and telephone facilities, were appointed. Resolutions were ap- 
proved by both the Town of Chapel Hill and the Town of Carrboro, asser- 
ing the right to franchise or to refuse to franchise any utility serving their 
people. The two towns had appointed a task force, and Orange County 
had joined to study how local interests might best be protected. 

Final arrangements for the sale of the utilities operated by the univer- 
sity at Chapel Hill were approved by the Chapel Hill Board of Trustees on 
1 1 June 1976. The sale of the telephone, electric, water, and sewerage sys- 
tems brought $44,065,238. Of this amount, the General Assembly re- 
quired $10,000,000 to be transferred to the State General Fund leaving 
$34,065,238 to accrue to the university at Chapel Hill. At the time of the 
sale, the university was required to place $4,938,520 in escrow to cover 
potential property tax liability in a case then pending between the univer- 
sity and the towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro and Orange County. On 
15 July 1980 the Supreme Court of the State of North Carolina ruled that 
the university was not subject to property taxes on its utility holdings. In 
the meantime, however, the Internal Revenue Service had informed the 
university of its intent to assess federal taxes against the utility opera- 
tions, and the escrow fund was redesignated to be held against the poten- 
tial federal tax liability. Later a tax payment was made to the federal gov- 
ernment and a formal claim for refund was made at the same time. By 
1986 the federal government had given up its claim in this matter and re- 
funded the payment. 

The legislation that authorized the sale of the utilities system provided 
that the proceeds the university at Chapel Hill was authorized to retain be 
utilized "for such projects and purposes as may be approved by the Board 
of Trustees of The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, by the 
Board of Governors of The University of North Carolina and by the Ad- 
visory Budget Commission." There was an authorization of $23,836,718 
for a new central library. The amount of $5,660,000 was authorized 
for the renovation of the Wilson Library, and $3,730,000 was desig- 
nated for an addition to the Health Affairs Library. All income earned 
by the state treasurer from the investment of the proceeds of the sale 
prior to their disbursement was credited to the State General Fund. The 
$4,938,520 that had been paid to the Internal Revenue Service included 
$4,100,000 that had been transferred from the utility operating reserve 
available at the time of the sale. When the $4,938,520 finally became avail- 
able in 1986, it was allocated by the Board of Governors for the renova- 
tion of the Ackland Building, for a facilities-support building, and for 
advance planning on the replacement of the power plant. 



The Beginning of the Sixteen-Campus University [!79] 

Almost fourteen years after the Board of Governors made one of its 
first important decisions, the case of the disposition of the utilities system 
of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill reached its conclusion. 

There were other accumulated problems that had to be considered in 
advance of the substantive planning that was a main mission of the Board 
of Governors. Among these were the expansion of medical education, the 
education of veterinarians, and relationships with the Civil Rights Divi- 
sion of The Department of Health, Education and Welfare. There were 
also other secondary and less pressing problems, such as suggestions that 
another law school should be established by the Board of Governors, and 
for nursing education opportunities in the university, and the preparatory 
studies that would have to be made before long-range planning could be 
meaningful. Among the latter was an academic program inventory to in- 
clude every program offered by each of the sixteen constituent institutions. 



CHAPTER 11 



Expansion of Medical Education 



I T has already been pointed out that in 1965 the General Assembly, with- 
out seeking advice from the Board of Higher Education, acted to create a 
school of medicine at East Carolina College. During the period of confu- 
sion when many changes were being made in the status of the public in- 
stitutions, this action of the General Assembly was a subject for frequent 
discussion, especially among eastern North Carolina political leaders. It 
has also been mentioned that the Liaison Committee on Medical Educa- 
tion of the American Medical Association and the Association of Ameri- 
can Medical Colleges did not look with favor upon this proposal; however, 
under the insistent leadership of President Leo Jenkins, East Carolina made 
another proposal for a two-year medical school to the Board of Higher 
Education. Once again, the Liaison Committee on Medical Education re- 
ported that developments at East Carolina University did not justify this 
action. 

The Board of Higher Education, we have seen, made a comprehensive 
report on medical education that included a recommendation for the first 
year of medical training to be taught on the East Carolina campus in con- 
junction with the medical school of the University of North Carolina at 
Chapel Hill. Governor Scott, who did not want his plans for restructur- 
ing higher education to be confused by the medical school issue, con- 
sented to back a one-year medical school at East Carolina University, thus 
defusing efforts in the General Assembly by East Carolina University 
partisans to continue pushing for a two-year medical school. He warned 
the proponents of East Carolina that if they continued to hold out for a 
two-year school, the institution could come away with nothing. The 
Board of Higher Education contributed to clearing the way for East 
Carolina University to seek legislative authorization for the program by 
proposing an appropriation of 1.4 million dollars for the first-year medi- 
cal school with the mandate that students who completed the program be 
admitted to the second year of the medical school at Chapel Hill. The 
General Assembly of 1971 provided the funds, and in the fall of 1972, 
shortly after the Board of Governors became responsible for the restruc- 

[.so] 



Expansion of Medical Education [181] 

tured university, the first class of twenty students was enrolled. They 
were chosen from some two hundred applicants and included nineteen 
men and one woman — all from North Carolina. Sixteen full-time faculty 
members, two of whom had been at East Carolina University previously, 
were there to teach the twenty students. 

There had been concern in North Carolina for many years over the low 
per-capita ratio of physicians to population. This was a motive for the 
Good Health Campaign after World War II that resulted in a greatly im- 
proved system of hospitals and in the elevation of the two-year medical 
school of the University of North Carolina to four-year status in 1952. 
North Carolina was still near the bottom of the list of states with a ratio 
of only sixty-nine physicians in private practice per 100,000 civilian popu- 
lation in 1969. Some rural counties were without access to the services of 
a physician. There was general agreement that more medical doctors were 
needed. By 1968, the medical school at Chapel Hill was planning to in- 
crease its entering class from seventy-five to one hundred students in 
1970, and to one hundred and sixty in 1976 to help meet the crisis. 

In 1969 the Board of Higher Education, perhaps prodded by East 
Carolina University's campaign for a medical school, issued a report en- 
titled "Shortage of Doctors in North Carolina." The report emphasized 
the complexity of the problem, the need for expanding the enrollment of 
the University of North Carolina School of Medicine, the necessity of 
providing state aid to the Duke and Wake Forest Medical Schools in ex- 
change for their increasing the enrollment of North Carolinians, and the 
importance of continuing the contract relationship with Meharry medical 
school. The report also recommended that the question of the East Caro- 
lina University school of medicine be referred to the Board of Higher 
Education. 

This was followed over the next five years by at least five other reports, 
one a monumental study by an out-of-state panel of consultants, which 
made a number of useful recommendations but also cautioned that the 
problem could not be solved with more doctors alone. There were many 
facets to the problem they pointed out, among them the life style of the 
people, income, distribution of doctors and other health professionals, 
and efficiency of the health delivery system. A new medical school was 
low on their list of priorities. 

By the time the problem of improving health care and increasing the 
supply of physicians became the responsibility of the Board of Gover- 
nors, it was a highly divisive issue. To much of eastern North Carolina, 
the solution was simplistic: "Give us a medical school at East Carolina 
University to train family practitioners for our rural areas and our prob- 
lem will be solved." Fortunately, as the dynamics of the new school 



[182] The Multicampus University of North Carolina 

pushed that issue to achievement, it was possible to secure support for 
some other/innovations that are now both improving the quality of health 
care and increasing the supply and distribution of physicians. 

On 23 June 1972, just before the Board of Governors set out on its mis- 
sion, President Friday reported that East Carolina University had submit- 
ted what it described as the "logical next step toward the eventual estab- 
lishment of a degree-granting medical school," a request for budgetary 
support during the 1973-75 biennium for the addition of the second year 
of medical education to its one-year program. In the proposal it was ar- 
gued that a second year of medical education would provide greater access 
for a larger number of North Carolinians; that it would provide for larger 
enrollments and thus greater economy in the program; that it would ex- 
pand medical services to the eastern part of the state; that East Carolina 
University would attain the necessary status to become eligible for federal 
funds under the Health Professions Educational Assistance Act and from 
private foundations; and that it would relieve the University of North 
Carolina at Chapel Hill medical school of the obligation to reserve places 
in its second-year class for East Carolina transfers. The one-year medical 
program had caused considerable confusion in the medical school at 
Chapel Hill which had been required by law to transfer the graduates of 
the one-year program at East Carolina University to its second-year pro- 
gram. Dean Fordham of the medical school at Chapel Hill and his associ- 
ates were forced to deal with this odd situation — a second-year class 
larger than a first-year class. 

The Board of Governors responded to the East Carolina University re- 
quest while it was still the Planning Committee. After consulting with 
officials of East Carolina University and of the three medical schools 
in the state, President Friday asked the Planning Committee to autho- 
rize Governor Scott to appoint a committee to study the proposal. Mr. 
Robert B. Jordan III was named chairman of the committee, which made 
a thorough investigation, extending over the next six months, and re- 
ported its findings to the Board of Governors on 12 January 1973. The 
committee made the following recommendations: (1) that the Board of 
Governors "consider seriously the establishment of a new degree-granting 
school of medicine which would emphasize the training of primary-care 
physicians," and in view of this recommendation they further recom- 
mended that the Board of Governors "commission the appointment of a 
team of experienced and qualified national consultants to evaluate the 
need for an additional degree-granting school of medicine within The 
University of North Carolina"; (2) that support for North Carolina resi- 
dents attending Duke and Bowman Gray schools of medicine, which 
had been initiated by the Board of Higher Education, be increased to 
$5,000 each for 1973-75 and $6,000 for 1975-76 in return for reserving 



Expansion of Medical Education [i 83] 

more spaces for North Carolina students and that support of students in 
Meharry Medical College of Fisk University in Nashville, Tennessee, be 
continued; (3) that the University of North Carolina medical school in- 
crease the size of its entering class to 140 in 1975 and to 160 in 1980, and 
that it seek $11.5 million in capital funds from the legislature for 1973-75; 
(4) that a standing committee of the board on health sciences be estab- 
lished; and (5) that staff knowledgeable in the health sciences should be 
added to the General Administration staff. The report of the committee 
was adopted unanimously, and the first three recommendations were sub- 
sequently carried out. 

The Jordan Committee also recommended that the report of the con- 
sultants should be carefully studied before committing tax resources to a 
second year for the medical school at East Carolina University and, con- 
sequently, that this request should be disapproved. During the presenta- 
tion of the Jordan Committee report, it developed that "between 100 and 
150 petitions or resolutions that had been adopted by cities, towns and 
civic groups urging support of the East Carolina Medical School" had 
been submitted. Thus, the pressure was being applied, but the request 
was postponed. 

In March 1973 the North Carolina Medical Society released a report 
that concluded that East Carolina University's medical school should be 
abolished and that no new four-year medical school was needed in the 
state. On 22 May this was endorsed as the policy of the Medical Society. 
Obviously, opinion throughout North Carolina on the policy to follow 
respecting the founding of a medical school at East Carolina University 
was becoming polarized. 

In August 1973 an accreditation report of the Liaison Committee on 
Medical Education dealing with the accreditation of the medical school at 
the University of North Carolina, which was responsible for the East 
Carolina University one-year program, stated that "the East Carolina 
University Medical School is seriously lacking in acceptable quality in its 
present form" and that the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 
medical school "must have adequate quality control" over the medical 
program at East Carolina University. In the meantime, the panel of dis- 
tinguished medical educators, with Dr. Ivan L. Bennett, Jr., vice presi- 
dent for health affairs and dean of the School of Medicine of New York 
University as chairman, recommended by the Jordan Committee, had 
been selected and had conducted a study that began 13 April 1973. On 
21 September 1973 it submitted a report to the Board of Governors en- 
titled "A Statewide Plan for Medical Education in North Carolina." Like 
the earlier Board of Higher Education Report and the Jordan Committee 
Report, the report recommended increased state support for the Duke 
University, Bowman Gray, and Meharry medical schools. Other recom- 



[184] The Multicampus University of North Carolina 

mendationS/Were as follows: (1) that the Board of Governors continue to 
build upon the concept of Area Health Education Centers (AHECs) so 
that 250 to 300 additional "primary care residencies be established as 
quickly as possible"; (2) that the Board of Governors explicitly assign to 
the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill medical school "clear re- 
sponsibility and authority for all programs of undergraduate, postgradu- 
ate and continuing medical education within The University of North 
Carolina System" and that it have "the direct administrative and operat- 
ing responsibility for upgrading and maintaining the existing one-year 
medical program at East Carolina University with firm authority over 
admission and promotion of students, selection and appointment of fac- 
ulty, redesign of curriculum and budgeting for operations as well as capi- 
tal expenditures"; (3) "that there be no commitment of State resources for 
the establishment of a new four-year medical school within The Univer- 
sity of North Carolina"; (4) that "if improvement in the [ECU] program 
occurs and is sustained and if the development of additional capacity 
within the State to give clinical education to medical students warrants, it 
may then become feasible and desirable to further expand class size and to 
add a second year of medical education to the program." 

On 27 September the Board of Governors in a special session, after 
much discussion, passed a motion by a vote of 22-8 directing President 
Friday to "outline a program for consideration by the Board of Gover- 
nors consistent with the recommendations of the panel of medical con- 
sultants, with appropriate budget recommendations." 

President Friday's program was considered by the board on 16 Novem- 
ber 1973. After considerable argument, it was approved by a vote of 
22-7. Among its recommendations were $29 million to expand five 
AHECs and to establish four new ones, an innovation the panel of con- 
sultants endorsed with enthusiasm; $90,000 to establish fifteen medical 
scholarships for qualified but financially disadvantaged North Carolin- 
ians, a significant innovation; and $277,000 to strengthen the medical 
program at East Carolina University. 

The Board of Governors passed a motion on 1 1 January 1974, authoriz- 
ing Chairman Dees to act as the board's official spokesman, "to take all 
such actions as he deems appropriate to place before the Legislature, the 
citizens, and the press of the State the findings and conclusions of this 
Board with respect to the medical education and health care needs of the 
State." 

While the Bennett Panel of consultants was preparing its report, the 
legislature in the spring of 1973, passed two resolutions bearing on the 
medical manpower problem. One of the resolutions directed the Joint 
Committee on Health of the General Assembly to make an interim study 
of manpower shortages in the medical care delivery system in North 



Expansion of Medical Education [i 8 5] 

Carolina. The other set up a Joint Legislative Commission on Medical 
Manpower and charged it with holding public hearings and reviewing 
"all pertinent reports and documents, as well as past and presently pro- 
posed legislative actions, related to the problem of medical manpower in 
the State and including, specifically, the anticipated report of the medical 
consultants group employed by the Board of Governors of The University 
of North Carolina. " It was directed to report its findings and recommenda- 
tions to the General Assembly in January 1974. This was apparently a 
watchdog committee to monitor the activities and recommendations of 
the Board of Governors in this field. 

In December 1973, the Report of the Medical Manpower Study Commis- 
sion to the 1974 session of the legislature was issued. This combined the 
efforts of the two study groups that had been appointed by the General 
Assembly in the spring of 1973. The Report was critical of many previous 
efforts of the various study committees. It came to a different conclusion 
concerning the possible productivity of the one-year medical program at 
East Carolina University from that recommended by the medical consul- 
tants. It argued that the costs of starting a new medical school had been 
exaggerated, and it stated that the most practical and economical ap- 
proach to solving health care problems in North Carolina would be the 
expansion of the medical school at East Carolina University. The Report 
of the two commissions accurately reflected the point of view of the 
legislature. 

Mr. Dees reported to the board on 8 February that he had held numer- 
ous meetings with legislators individually and in groups. He had pre- 
pared for legislators a summary of the board's plans and its benefits. He 
had made numerous speeches and had asked others to speak in explana- 
tion of the board's position. 

The efforts of Mr. Dees and others who sought to convince the Gen- 
eral Assembly to accept the board's plan with respect to the East Carolina 
medical school, were to no avail. On 8 March Mr. Dees reported to the 
board on a bill that was approved on 26 February 1974 by the Joint Ap- 
propriations Committee and included by the committee in the General 
Appropriations Act. The action may have been influenced by the Report of 
the Medical Manpower Commission. Copies of the action of the Joint Ap- 
propriations Committee were available for all members of the Board of 
Governors. The part affecting the university had been drafted by Senator 
Ralph H. Scott and Representative Carl J. Stewart. It was subsequently 
adopted on 8 April (Chapter 1190, 1974 Session Laws) and Section 46 
provided the following: 

The Board of Governors of The University of North Carolina is 
hereby directed to submit to the General Assembly in its operating 



[186] The Multicampus University of North Carolina 

budget for the 1975-76 fiscal year comprehensive plans: (1) to ex- 
pand as soon as practicable the program of first-year medical edu- 
cation at the East Carolina School of Medicine, and (2) to add a 
second-year program of medical education at the East Carolina Uni- 
versity School of Medicine, and (3) that concentration be placed 
upon the training of family physicians, and (4) that special efforts be 
made to encourage the recruitment and medical education of racial 
minorities. 

The University of North Carolina School of Medicine at Chapel 
Hill and the East Carolina School of Medicine shall work coopera- 
tively toward full accreditation of the expanded Medical Education 
Program at East Carolina University to the end that its graduates 
may transfer freely to other units of The University of North Caro- 
lina School of Medicine. 

The act appropriated $7.5 million to the board to erect a basic medical 
science building at East Carolina University. 

President Friday asked Chancellor Jenkins to make a recommendation 
for implementing the requirement that the two institutions work co- 
operatively toward accreditation. He responded requesting that responsi- 
bility for the planning be assigned to him. Chancellor Ferebee Taylor and 
Dean Fordham concurred in and supported Chancellor Jenkins' proposal. 

President Friday asked approval of placing the planning for a free- 
standing two-year medical school under Chancellor Jenkins provided that 
it meets the consent of the accreditation authorities. The Board of Gover- 
nors approved, and President Friday filed with the Liaison Committee on 
Medical Education a formal request that planning for the expansion of 
the East Carolina School of Medicine be delegated to that institution and 
that the planning be directed toward the establishment of a separately ac- 
credited two-year program whose students would transfer to the School 
of Medicine at Chapel Hill to complete their degree requirements. 

Dr. Glenn Leymaster, secretary of the Liaison Committee, informed 
President Friday that "the proposed free-standing, two-year Medical 
School with guaranteed access to The University of North Carolina 
Medical School at Chapel Hill does not fit the criteria of programs in the 
basic medical sciences which the Liaison Committee will consider for 
accreditation." 

President Friday had no alternative to assigning the responsibility for 
planning to the School of Medicine at Chapel Hill. On 16 July 1974 he 
sent a memorandum to Chancellor Jenkins, Chancellor Taylor, and Dean 
Fordham, in which he assigned to Dean Fordham "sole responsibility for 
all planning for the implementation" of the cooperative program. Fur- 
thermore, in the memorandum he also directed that, "consistent with the 



Expansion of Medical Education [^7] 

requirements of accreditation, the East Carolina University School of 
Medicine will be administered as a component of the School of Medicine 
of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill." 

It was recognized that time was short for the scope of the task required. 
Dean Fordham and his colleagues worked closely with the administration 
and medical faculty of East Carolina University. They recognized that the 
clinical sciences were of basic importance to the expansion of the pro- 
gram, and, consequently, the medical staff and trustees of the Pitt County 
Memorial Hospital also participated in the planning effort. More than 
one hundred meetings were held between members of Dean Fordham's 
staff and representatives of East Carolina University and the Pitt County 
Memorial Hospital. 

The task assigned to Dean Fordham was to address Section 46 of the 
act which directed the Board of Governors of the University of North 
Carolina to submit to the General Assembly in its operating budget for 
1975-76 comprehensive plans: 

1. to expand as soon as practicable the program of first-year medical 
education at the East Carolina University School of Medicine; 

2. to add a second-year program of medical education at the East 
Carolina University School of Medicine; 

3. to place concentration upon the training of family care physicians; 
and 

4. to encourage the recruitment and medical education of racial 
minorities. 

The University of North Carolina School of Medicine at Chapel Hill 
and East Carolina University School of Medicine were directed to work 
cooperatively toward full accreditation of the expanded medical program 
at East Carolina University. 

On 8 November 1974, Dean Fordham made a comprehensive state- 
ment of the findings of his study group over the previous four months 
entitled, "A Report to President Friday on Planning for the Implementa- 
tion of Section 46." 

With respect to administrative structure, it was found that the East 
Carolina University administration wanted a structure which appeared to 
modify the arrangements established by President Friday. Specifically, 
they wanted the authority of the program to be clearly vested in East 
Carolina University with the vague understanding that the ultimate re- 
sponsibility for the program would rest with the School of Medicine in 
the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. 

When they began discussing curricula, it was soon revealed to Dean 



[188] The Multicampus University of North Carolina 

Fordham and his associates that the second-year curriculum at Chapel 
Hill was unacceptable to the medical faculty and administration of East 
Carolina University and to the representatives of Pitt County Memorial 
Hospital. Chancellor Jenkins went so far as to write an article for the 
News and Observer dated 9 October 1974, revealing that "we received a 
copy of a tentative proposal from the planning group of the University of 
North Carolina School of Medicine. We, at East Carolina University, 
cannot support such an approach." The firm suggestion was that the 
plans developed by the East Carolina University medical faculty, when it 
was assumed that the initial planning responsibility would rest with the 
institution, spoke directly to the mandate of the General Assembly. 

Dean Fordham stated that "it should be clear from the study of this 
report that only the plan developed by the East Carolina University Medi- 
cal Faculty was acceptable to" that faculty, to the East Carolina Univer- 
sity administration, and to the Pitt County Memorial Hospital. "There- 
fore, only the East Carolina University plan could be set forth as feasible 
to implement Section 46." 

When the clinical resources for medical education beyond the first year 
were explored, it was clear that there was no firm commitment from the 
Pitt County Memorial Hospital, and that it was probable that a teaching 
hospital would have to be constructed to implement the second year. Re- 
quirements were estimated for each of the following: faculty by discipline 
specialties, including support staff; interim and permanent facilities; and 
both capital and operating budgets. The possible coordination of the 
medical education programs at East Carolina University with the devel- 
oping Eastern Area Health Education Center (AHEC) was also explored. 

When all of the elements that would be needed to implement Section 
46 were summarized, they included the following: faculty requirements, 
66; interim space requirements (1975-79), 38,820 square feet; permanent 
physical facilities requirements for fifty medical students in each class of a 
two-year school, 163,000 net square feet; and a 200-bed teaching hospital 
(not specified by the East Carolina University medical faculty plan). 

It was estimated that the total operating budget including expansion of 
the Health Affairs Library would amount to $1,074,000 in 1974-75, 
$2,516,000 in 1975-76, and $3,437,000 in 1976-77. It was further esti- 
mated that $25,245,000 would be necessary for permanent improvements 
as planned by the East Carolina University medical school faculty and an 
additional $20 million for a 200-bed teaching hospital that Dean Ford- 
ham's team recommended. 

Dean Fordham pointed out "it should be noted that implementation of 
Section 46 as described will not add to the output of doctors for the 
State." He did not point out clearly, however, that the fifty graduates of 



Expansion of Medical Education [i 89] 

the two-year program, who would have to be transferred to the medical 
school of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, would result 
in a corresponding reduction of the total potential at Chapel Hill. 

President Friday used the data included in Dean Fordham's study and 
added other material which he presented to the Committee on Educa- 
tional Planning, Policies and Programs and the Committee on Budget 
and Finance on 8 November 1974. He then presented it to the Board of 
Governors on 15 November in a document entitled, "The Expansion of 
the East Carolina University School of Medicine," which covers pages 
46-72 in Volume V, The Minutes of the Board of Governors. 

President Friday analyzed everything that would have to be done to im- 
plement Section 46 and provide for an enrollment of fifty second-year 
students by 1979-80. He pointed out that the estimated annual operating 
costs of the two-year school of medicine would be in the order of five 
million dollars when it reached full enrollment, and he estimated further 
that capital expenditures required to implement the program would be 
approximately $25.2 million without a teaching hospital and $45.2 mil- 
lion if the hospital should be added. For all of these purposes, the Board 
of Governors had available at that time $15 million. He concluded as 
follows: 

Thus, by 1979-80, the State would have in operation a program in 
which twenty-five to forty-five million dollars would have been ex- 
pended for construction projects and for which annual operating 
costs would be five to ten million dollars (the operation of a 200-bed 
teaching hospital would require an estimated five million dollars an- 
nually from State funds). 

This level of effort — regardless of whether one assumed a teaching 
hospital — is an investment which should produce significant bene- 
fits. In its present status, however, this plan will not, despite the costs 
incurred, increase the output of physicians in North Carolina or add 
to medical educational opportunities available to North Carolinians. 

President Friday emphasized that when the School of Medicine at East 
Carolina University enrolled fifty first-year and fifty second-year stu- 
dents, those students would have to transfer to a degree-granting school 
to complete undergraduate medical training. Both Section 46 and the ac- 
creditation agreements contemplated that these students would transfer to 
Chapel Hill. He noted that the "enrollment capacities of the School of 
Medicine at Chapel Hill have been established and approved" by the Liai- 
son Committee on Medical Education for the next decade. He continued: 

The capability does not exist, nor is it planned, to provide addi- 
tional facilities and resources to accommodate a net increase of a 



[190] The Multicampus University oj North Carolina 

( 
hundred students in the third and fourth-year classes. Either Chapel 
Hill must limit its enrollment in the first and second-year classes 
considerably under its capacity or some other provision must be 
made for the third and fourth years of training in the School of 
Medicine at East Carolina University. The scale of inefficiency im- 
plicit in the proposed expansion of the East Carolina University 
program to implement Section 46 thus presents an entirely new 
situation. 

After emphasizing that the implementation of Section 46, in accor- 
dance with the plan presented in his report, would not produce benefits 
to the state commensurate with its costs, he stated that in his judgment 
the benefits would result only if resources were provided for additional 
third- and fourth-year places at East Carolina University. He estimated 
that the resources needed beyond those that would be required to imple- 
ment Section 46 would be $5 million for capital improvements and $5 
million for operations. 

Mr. William A. Johnson, vice chairman of the Committee on Educa- 
tional Planning, Policies and Programs, presented the report on medical 
education in the absence of the chairman, Dr. Hugh S. Daniel, Jr. After 
an overview of the president's report, he moved: 

(1) that the Board of Governors authorize the development of a 
four-year, degree-granting School of Medicine at East Carolina Uni- 
versity and that it further authorize the enrollment schedule for such 
development as set forth on page 23 of the President's report; and 

(2) that the Board of Governors recommend to the 1975 General 
Assembly, as the comprehensive plans required for implementation 
of Section 46, that additional appropriations of $35,245,000 be pro- 
vided for capital construction projects, and that additional appropri- 
ations of $1,442,278 be provided for 1975-76 and $2,363,337 for 
1976-77 for current operations; and 

(3) that the Board of Governors authorize the President to take the 
necessary steps, as set forth in his report of November 8, 1974, to 
implement this program. 

Dr. E. B. Turner seconded the motion and a debate ensued. Mr. Vic- 
tor S. Bryant submitted a statement in which he argued that the Board of 
Governors should report the facts to the legislature without making a rec- 
ommendation. He contended that, "The Legislature having already taken 
action on the matter of the two-year school, the question of whether the 
State should expand this into a four-year medical school should be a legis- 
lative decision." He had some support for this point of view, but even- 
tually the motion passed with five dissenting votes. The discussion was 



Expansion of Medical Education [ I 9 I ] 

closed with a statement from Mr. Thomas J. White, Jr., that "at long last, 
I have the privilege of supporting a medical school proposal at East Caro- 
lina University without reservation." 

President Friday was overheard to remark, after the approval of his rec- 
ommendations, that the university could not tolerate a second-class medi- 
cal school. If East Carolina was to have a four-year, free-standing medical 
school, he stated that he intended to do all that he could to make it an 
excellent school. 

Despite the budgetary stringency of 1975—77, when only token salary 
increases were granted and severe retrenchments in the state budget were 
required, the General Assembly approved the funding for the East Caro- 
lina four-year medical school. In addition, as will be discussed below, the 
other facets of the statewide plan for medical education were also sup- 
ported by the General Assembly. The medical manpower commission 
had placed its stamp of approval on much of the statewide plan. 

On 10 June 1975 President Friday reported to the Board of Governors 
that Chancellor Jenkins had informed him that East Carolina University 
would not pursue accreditation until 1976, and President Friday thought 
that this was a wise decision. The Liaison Committee on Medical Educa- 
tion visited East Carolina University on 1 and 2 March 1976 and identi- 
fied several important areas where progress was needed: among these 
were faculty recruitment, appointment of key department chairmen, de- 
velopment of residencies, and formal approval of the affiliation between 
East Carolina University and Pitt County Memorial Hospital. Progress 
was made on the latter problem, and an affiliation agreement providing 
for the utilization of the Pitt County Memorial Hospital as the primary 
teaching hospital for East Carolina University School of Medicine was 
entered into on 17 December 1975 by the Board of Trustees of Pitt County 
Memorial Hospital, the Board of Commissioners of Pitt County, and the 
Board of Governors. This agreement was amended in February 1977. 

Under the leadership of its new dean, Dr. William E. Laupus, during 
1975-76, an extensive expansion of the hospital was launched. The school 
occupied the renovated Ragsdale Building, and also made progress to- 
ward assembling a professional staff and building a medical school library. 
In 1976-77, the School of Medicine was awarded accreditation by the Liai- 
son Committee on Medical Education and was given approval to enroll 
its first four-year class on 22 August 1977. During that year the School of 
Medicine also completed the recruitment of chairpersons for its major 
basic science and clinical departments. Relationships between the East 
Carolina University medical school and the Eastern Area Health Educa- 
tion Center were strengthened. 

In 1978 the Liaison Committee on Medical Education gave the East 
Carolina medical school permission to enlarge the first-year class to 36 



[192] The Multicampus University of North Carolina 

students, and the approval of residency training programs was received by 
six departments in the school. During "1978-79, the school had thirty 
residents in training with a roster of fifty-five residents scheduled to be- 
gin training July 1, 1979." The year 1979-80 was notable for further de- 
velopment of the school. Among the highlights were the installation of 
the whole-body computerized-tomography (CT) scanner, the comple- 
tion of the cardiac-catheterization laboratory, and the opening of the 
Bethel Family Practice Clinic. The construction of the 166-bed tower at 
Pitt County Memorial Hospital was underway, and progress toward the 
completion of the Brody Medical Science Building had been made. 

The School of Medicine reached a major milestone in its development 
with the graduation in the spring of 198 1 of its first class of twenty-eight 
North Carolinians who were awarded the M.D. degree. The School of 
Medicine also achieved that year full unqualified accreditation for four 
years by the Liaison Committee on Medical Education. In 1981 the 150 
full-time faculty members had a productive year in research and other 
scholarly pursuits. The school received almost $4 million in grants and 
contracts to aid research efforts. In the fall of 1981, fifty-two first-year 
students were enrolled, bringing the medical school enrollment to 172, 
and the Liaison Committee on Medical Education granted approval to in- 
crease the class size to sixty-four in 1982. 

In November 1982 the new bed tower for Pitt County Memorial Hos- 
pital was completed and opened for patient care. These additional beds 
plus the expansion of the in-patient psychiatric unit increased the capacity 
of the hospital to 545 beds. The Brody Medical Science Building was 
dedicated on 29 October 1982. Plans for the radiation therapy center were 
completed in late 1982. The six residency training programs had ninety- 
three residents with thirty- four completing residencies in June 1983. 

The medical school had reached a degree of maturity that few would 
have predicted a decade earlier. It had run the gauntlet of a series of ex- 
perts, few of whom recommended it. The school was achieved out of the 
persistent and sometimes abrasive efforts of Chancellor Jenkins and many 
leaders in eastern North Carolina who considered it essential to the fur- 
ther development of their region. To reach this dream for eastern North 
Carolina, the state of North Carolina invested $50.2 million in capital 
funds. By 1985-86, the annual operating budget had reached $37,400,000. 

When the Board of Governors created the panel of medical consultants 
headed by Dr. Ivan L. Bennett, Jr., it was motivated by the push for 
a medical school at East Carolina University; however, it had a much 
broader objective, which was to alleviate the difficulty of obtaining phy- 
sician services and gaining ready access to medical care. The panel of 
medical consultants proposed a statewide plan for medical education in 



Expansion of Medical Education [!93] 

North Carolina, and while it did not recommend the expansion of the 
one-year program at East Carolina University, it did recommend some 
other facets of a statewide plan that subsequently had a great impact on 
making services available on a wider base. 

The committee, when it first addressed its task, was astonished. In the 
report, they stated, in discussing the climate they found with respect to 
improving access: 

We were quite surprised, however, to discover that public considera- 
tion of possible action to improve medical care in North Carolina 
was narrowing, with singleminded intensity into a protracted, often 
acrimonious, partisan and regional political debate concerning the 
specific proposition of establishing a new, degree-granting School of 
Medicine at ECU. The result of this sharp focus brought about by 
apostolic advocacy for a single possible step has been that several ad- 
ditional alternatives and potentially-effective measures that deserve 
careful consideration lately have received scant attention. 

In their recommendations, they did not mention expansion in enroll- 
ment of the medical school at Chapel Hill since that was already underway 
and had recently been increased from an entering class of 70 to no and 
subsequently was further increased to 160. 

Its first recommendation and the one that it appeared to endorse most 
enthusiastically was as follows: 

We recommend that the Board of Governors prepare a plan to build 
upon the concept of AHECs (Area Health Education Centers) and to 
develop a Statewide system of medical and health education, based in 
hospitals in all regions of the State, and organized in such a fashion 
to provide resources to enable the Duke University School of Medi- 
cine and the Bowman Gray School of Medicine to share with the 
UNC-CH School of Medicine in the task of implementing the plan, 
using the expertise, experience, and educational resources of all three 
institutions in an organized fashion, integrated into a Statewide 
effort. 

One of the problems that had been stressed most by those who argued 
for another medical school was the need for more family practitioners or 
for more medical services in the smaller communities in the state. A 
simple solution envisaged by many was to build a medical school in the 
section of the state where services were needed and commission it to con- 
centrate on training family practitioners. The panel of medical consul- 
tants pointed out that the hope for increasing medical services on a state- 
wide basis within a decade would have to be based on physicians who 



[194] \ The Multicampus University oj North Carolina 

were then in training or had recently graduated, and that this could best 
be accomplished by establishing as many as 250 to 300 primary-care resi- 
dencies throughout the state and expanding the facilities available for the 
clinical training of medical students. This articulated with efforts that 
were already underway in the medical school at Chapel Hill. The medical 
school had been sensitive to the underserved areas in the state, and as it 
increased its enrollment had experienced the need for more clinical facili- 
ties. As early as 1967 it had made an affiliation agreement with Moses 
Cone Hospital in Greensboro. The North Carolina Regional Medical 
program in 1968 provided $209,000 for community training. In 1969 and 
1 97 1 the North Carolina General Assembly provided a state appropriation 
for the cost of providing clerkships to fourth-year medical students in 
community hospitals. An affiliation agreement was entered into in 1970 
with Memorial Hospital in Wilmington and in 1971 with Charlotte Me- 
morial Hospital, Wake Memorial Hospital, Nash General Hospital, and 
Edgecombe General Hospital. At about this time the Comprehensive 
Health Manpower Training Act of 197 1 made it possible for the federal 
government to begin assistance for AHEC Programs. In June 1972 the 
School of Medicine of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 
was awarded a five-year, $8.5 million contract to establish three AHECs. 

An Area Health Education Center (AHEC) was a cooperative arrange- 
ment between the university and an area of the state centered usually in a 
hospital that contracted with the university for a variety of health services. 
The area in turn provided the university with educational opportunities for 
its students and residents. The cooperative arrangement involved various 
allied health fields, dentistry, medicine, nursing, pharmacy, and public 
health. Library facilities were also provided and the university used state 
funds for providing teaching space. The AHECs were by no means uni- 
form in the services they rendered; however, they all provided some ex- 
tension of health services to communities and made available teaching 
opportunities in the service fields. Over the years, they matured and came 
to be greatly cherished in all of the areas that they served. 

In 1974 the Board of Governors proposed to the legislature a budget 
that provided for the expansion of the three centers that had been funded 
by the federal government and the expansion of the program to include 
six new centers which would complete a statewide network. The legis- 
lature appropriated over $24,000,000 for capital improvements and over 
$4,600,000 for operating funds. 

The General Assembly also provided for the establishment through the 
AHEC program of 300 medical residency positions. These were dis- 
tributed among four primary-care specialties: internal medicine, pedi- 
atrics, obstetrics-gynecology, and family medicine. 



Expansion of Medical Education I 1 95] 

The statewide AHEC Program brought into the program the other 
medical schools in the state: Bowman Gray School of Medicine was the 
primary affiliate for the northwest AHEC; Duke University Medical 
Center became the primary affiliate for the Fayetteville AHEC; and East 
Carolina University School of Medicine together with its Nursing Allied 
Health components became the primary affiliate for the eastern AHEC; 
the University of North Carolina School of Medicine at Chapel Hill was 
responsible for the Greensboro, Mountain (Asheville), and Wake AHECS, 
combined with its responsibility for the three original centers at Char- 
lotte, Wilmington, and Area L (Tarboro). The program developed affilia- 
tions with the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Schools of 
Pharmacy, Dentistry, Nursing and Public Health to provide well-rounded 
services in community-based education. Later other campuses of the 
University of North Carolina entered into agreements with AHECs that 
serve their regions. As a result of these arrangements, the universities and 
the AHECs were able to develop and expand off-campus training for 
their students in clinical sites throughout the state. The AHEC library 
services were developed in cooperation with the four university health 
science libraries. 

Programs in continuing education were developed and offered for 
health-professional personnel in all of the centers. 

In the early days of the program, it was supported at the ratio of 55 
percent state funding and 45 percent federal funding. By 1983-84, the 
proportion was 65.9 percent state funding, 33.7 percent local funding, 
and only four-tenths of one percent federal funding. In 1984 the state ap- 
propriated funds in support of the AHEC Program amounted to over 
$23,000,000 annually. 

The university's health services are extended throughout the state by a 
fleet of five Piper airplanes that in a recent year flew more than 4,200 trips 
and landed more than 30,000 times in over sixty towns in North Carolina. 

The AHEC program has been nationally and internationally acclaimed 
as one of the most imaginative programs for extending medical services 
over a large area that is found anywhere. Tested by the original intent of 
the program it is certainly a success. In 1982, fifty primary-care residents 
completed their training, 70 percent of these remained in North Carolina, 
and a third of them settled in North Carolina towns with a population of 
less than 5,000. 

Another recommendation of the panel of medical consultants that still 
influences the accessibility of students to medical education was the advo- 
cacy of continued support for Bowman Gray and Duke medical schools 
and for students who qualified to attend Meharry medical school. In 
1985-86 Duke University received $571,000 for the 114 North Carolina 



[196] V The Multicampus University of North Carolina 

residents attending the medical school. Bowman Gray received $2,032,000 
for the 254 North Carolina residents attending the medical school. In ad- 
dition, there were eleven North Carolina residents in attendance at Me- 
harry medical school. The Board of Governors' Medical Scholars Pro- 
gram also supported sixty-one students who received a total of $509,878 
in 1984-85. In addition, eleven students attended Meharry with scholar- 
ships of $5,250 each. 

From the various sources of medical practitioners — the University of 
North Carolina medical school, the Duke medical school, Bowman Gray 
medical school of Wake Forest, the residents brought into the state by the 
AHEC Program, and the migration of medical doctors from other states 
and foreign countries — the number increased from 5,395 in 1974 to 8,426 
in 1983. In 1974 there were 100.4 active practitioners for each 100,000 
people in North Carolina; in 1983 there were 138.5 per 100,000. 

Another problem to which the Board of Governors fell heir was the 
proposal for a school of veterinary medicine. Since 1949 some North 
Carolinians had received state grants for training in veterinary medicine 
at out-of-state universities, usually under a Southern Regional Education 
Board contract. For almost twenty years North Carolina had rarely filled 
the contract spaces available to it in schools of veterinary medicine. When 
the supply of students exceeded the number of spaces available about 
1967, the executive committee of the North Carolina Veterinary Medical 
Association passed a resolution advocating the establishment of a School 
of Veterinary Medicine at North Carolina State University. In 1970 the 
association requested Governor Scott to appoint a committee to make a 
feasibility study. On 12 January officers of the association called on the 
governor, and he endorsed their proposal. 

The governor appointed a thirteen-member committee with Dr. Ron- 
ald Williams of Raleigh as chairman and instructed the group to study the 
feasibility of establishing a school of veterinary medicine in North Caro- 
lina. He also asked the Board of Higher Education to undertake a study 
with the advice of the Williams Committee. The board suggested en- 
gaging a consultant, and after some investigation invited Dr. Calvin W. 
Schwabe of the School of Veterinary Medicine at the University of Cali- 
fornia at Davis to undertake the study. He made a brief investigation dur- 
ing July and filed a report with the Board of Higher Education on 9 Au- 
gust 1970. Dr. Schwabe recommended the establishment of a veterinary 
medical school within the University of North Carolina, noting the re- 
sources in the health sciences available at Chapel Hill and in agriculture 
and the life sciences at Raleigh. He estimated that a school with a total 
enrollment of 400, including graduate students and residents, would re- 
quire a full-time faculty of 100 to 120, a capital outlay of $20 million, and 
an annual operating budget of $6 million. 



Expansion of Medical Education [!97] 

The Williams Committee recommended to the Board of Higher Edu- 
cation that the Schwabe Report be followed and that the board should rec- 
ommend an appropriation for that purpose in the 1971-73 budget of 
$1,710,000 to the General Assembly of 1971. The Board of Higher Edu- 
cation did not agree that a school of veterinary medicine at that time was a 
pressing need and suggested working through the Board of Trustees of 
the University of North Carolina and that more contract opportunities 
for North Carolina citizens to attend other universities should be sought. 
The board also recommended that an undergraduate department of vet- 
erinary science should be established at North Carolina State University. 
The Board of Higher Education sought the advice of another committee 
composed of Dr. J. Lem Stokes II, associate director of the Board of 
Higher Education and Dean J. E. Legates of North Carolina State and 
Vice President H. B. James of the Consolidated University. They recom- 
mended four steps that would eventually lead to a school of veterinary 
medicine, the first of which was the establishment of a department of vet- 
erinary science at North Carolina State University. Through the interest 
of Governor Scott, $300,000 was made available to the Consolidated Uni- 
versity in May 1972 to begin the department of veterinary science. It was 
at this point that the Board of Governors became interested in the school. 
The executive committee of the Board of Trustees of the Consolidated 
University, in approving the Department of Veterinary Science on 12 
May, recommended to the Board of Governors, which was still acting as a 
Planning Committee, that it consider the feasibility of establishing a 
school of veterinary medicine. Over the next three years, evidence accu- 
mulated showing the need for a school. The committee that certified stu- 
dents for grants to attend out-of-state schools of veterinary medicine be- 
tween 1972 and 1974 interviewed 208 candidates and certified 179 as 
qualified. Seventy-six of these found places. 

The problem was first brought to the notice of the Board of Governors 
on 26 May 1972, when Dr. Stokes gave the members an account of the 
effort to secure support for a school of veterinary medicine and told 
about the $300,000 that the executive committee of the University of 
North Carolina had approved. It was more than a year before the subject 
came up again. On 14 September 1973 President Friday reported on the 
establishment of a Department of Veterinary Science at North Carolina 
State University and he also reported that the number of entering spaces 
for North Carolinians studying veterinary medicine in other states under 
Southern Regional Education Board contracts or other agreements had 
been increased by thirty percent and that efforts were on the way to in- 
crease the number further. On 11 April 1974, Mr. John L. Sanders, vice 
president for planning, reported that the Planning Committee and the 
staff were carefully following developments in veterinary education in the 



[198] \ The Multicampus University of North Carolina 

south and across the nation, realizing that North Carolina would soon 
need to decide whether it should embark on the building of a school of 
veterinary medicine. 

The next day, 12 April, the General Assembly ratified a resolution that 
requested the Board of Governors of The. University of North Carolina 
"to give special attention to the need for training additional veterinary 
medical practitioners for North Carolina, and to report to the General 
Assembly of 1975, not later than the 30th legislative day of the Session, its 
findings and recommendations for administrative and legislative action 
with respect to the extent of the need for and the most economical means 
of training additional veterinary medical practitioners for North Caro- 
lina." The staff spent a great deal of time over the next seven months 
gathering information for a report to the General Assembly. 

The directive from the General Assembly came while the university 
was engaged in negotiations with the Office for Civil Rights of the 
United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare concerning 
the elimination of racial duality in the public postsecondary education 
system of North Carolina. The proposed school of veterinary medicine 
almost immediately was caught up in the negotiations. 

On 10 May 1974 Vice President Sanders reviewed the situation in the 
south with respect to veterinary medicine. He stated that the Subcom- 
mittee on Professional Education of the Planning Committee planned to 
hold a meeting at which representatives of veterinary medicine and live- 
stock interests could share their information and advice with the subcom- 
mittee. It was anticipated that a report would be ready for the board's 
consideration sometime in the fall which would help the board chart a 
course in this field. A public hearing was held by the subcommittee in 
June and numerous witnesses endorsed the creation of a school of vet- 
erinary medicine. Among them were state legislators, the commissioner 
of agriculture, representatives of the veterinary medical profession, and 
many others closely related to the health of the animal population of 
the state. 

At this juncture, requests were received both from North Carolina State 
University and from North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State 
University for approval to establish a school of veterinary medicine on 
their respective campuses. This matter came before the board on 15 No- 
vember 1974, the same day the Board of Governors authorized the devel- 
opment of a four-year, degree-granting School of Medicine at East Caro- 
lina University. After that crucial decision was made, Vice Chairman 
Johnson of the Committee on Educational Planning, Policies and Pro- 
grams reviewed the work of the committee concerning veterinary educa- 
tion and pointed out that the Committee on Budget and Finance was as- 



Expansion of Medical Education I 1 99] 

sociated with it in considering the matter. He offered a lengthy motion of 
six parts, the first of which was to authorize: "North Carolina State Uni- 
versity at Raleigh to establish a School of Veterinary Medicine empowered 
to grant the Degree of Doctor of Veterinary Medicine, provided that the 
General Assembly of 1975 appropriates the necessary funds to finance the 
planning and developmental activities that must be carried on in 1975— 
77 in order to begin enrolling students during the following biennium." 
Another part of the motion requested an appropriation from the General 
Assembly of 1975 of $3,393,000 for the biennium. At the request of 
Chairman Dees, Chancellors Dowdy and Caldwell presented statements 
concerning the location of the proposed school. The chair reported on the 
numerous letters and telephone calls that had been received from various 
groups and individuals concerning the location of the school. 

When it became evident that the civil rights issue would be injected 
into a decision over the location of the school of veterinary medicine, two 
consultants, Dr. Clarence R. Cole and Dr. LaVerne D. Knezek, of the 
College of Veterinary Medicine, Ohio State University, were engaged to 
advise on the issue of the location for the projected school. They were to 
make an analysis and render an opinion on the single point from an edu- 
cational point of view, "Where should the School of Veterinary Medicine 
be located within The University of North Carolina?" The consultants 
made an elaborate investigation covering every relevant point and ren- 
dered the following opinion: "On the basis of the data supporting the 
above conclusions, this study recommends the placement of the proposed 
School of Veterinary Medicine at North Carolina State University at 
Raleigh." 

The presentation by Chancellor Dowdy, after arguing in support of the 
strengths of his institution, stated: 

We were especially concerned about the omission in the preliminary 
report of an impact survey to determine how the location of the new 
School at a particular site might affect the State's current higher edu- 
cation desegregation plan. 

We believe that in determining the location of this new School, the 
Board of Governors has a golden opportunity to make a giant step 
forward toward greater desegregation of higher education. By locat- 
ing the School at North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State 
University, we are confident that more white students and faculty 
would be attracted to our campus. 

Dr. Dowdy requested a delay of action on the location of the school of 
veterinary medicine until a study had been made to reveal the impact of 
minority enrollment on the campuses of the two universities. 



The Multicampus University of North Carolina 



Chancellor Caldwell made a short presentation pointing out the advan- 
tages of his insitution and then made this statement: "I come to a rather 
simple conclusion. It is obvious that the alternative plea before you is 
based predominantly on North Carolina's obligation toward removing 
the characteristic of racial duality from its higher education. We are all 
committed to that goal. But I have heard or read absolutely nothing in 
that plan which required that commitment to become the dominating 
consideration in every planning and program decision of the University 
System, which appears to be the proposition here." 

The board agreed to hear on the subject of location two other individu- 
als — Mr. Marcus Williams, president of the student government of the 
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and Mr. William Thomas, 
director, Office for Civil Rights, Department of Health, Education and 
Welfare, Region 4. Mr. Williams made some remarks and presented a 
resolution of the Union of North Carolina Student Body Presidents urg- 
ing the board to delay action on the location of the school. 

Mr. Thomas read a lengthy letter that had been hand-delivered to 
President Friday that day. He emphasized that the Revised North Carolina 
State Plan for the Further Elimination of Racial Duality in the Public Postsec- 
ondary Education System "commits the Board of Governors to project the 
racial impact on the student body of an institution of the adoption of any 
new program initiated." He asserted that in his meeting with represen- 
tatives from institutions of higher education his concern relative to the 
creation of the school of veterinary medicine and the need for an impact 
study were made known. It was his understanding, he further stated, that 
the representatives of the university knew this. He also stated that he had 
asked for the Cole Report and had not received it. He had received no 
information "relative to the impact considerations." Furthermore, he 
charged, "Information presently available to us does not indicate that the 
system had adequately considered the impact." At the end, Thomas was 
careful to state, "I should point out and emphasize that we are not, at this 
time, taking any position or expressing any opinion with reference to 
where the School should be located." 

After Mr. Thomas agreed that he had made one quotation out of con- 
text, there was a discussion as to what action should be taken. "A substi- 
tute motion, 'that the Board authorize the creation of a degree-granting 
School of Veterinary Medicine within the Statewide University and that 
it advise the Governor that the biennial cost for 1975-77 will be $3 , 393 ,000 
and that it postpone decision on the site until the December 18 meeting of 
the Board,'" was proposed by Mr. Froelich, seconded by Dr. Turner, and 
adopted. 

On 18 December Dr. Hugh S. Daniel, Jr., chairman of the Committee 



Expansion of Medical Education I 201 ] 

on Educational Planning, Policies and Programs, reported that following 
the last meeting, the committee had invited the chancellors of both in- 
stitutions and their staffs to prepare more extensive statements in behalf 
of their institutions as prospective sites for the school. Both had complied 
and both had also appeared a second time before the committee and pre- 
sented information on the location of the school and on the racial impact 
of its location at each site. He stated that after further study, the commit- 
tee had voted unanimously to recommend to the board adoption of a re- 
port, a draft of which had been mailed to each member of the board. He 
moved that the report entitled "Veterinary Medical Education in North 
Carolina: A Special Report to the General Assembly of North Carolina 
by the Board of Governors of The University of North Carolina," be 
adopted. 

Representatives of the North Carolina Alumni and Friends Coalition 
had asked to be heard by the board on the question of the location of the 
school. Special permission was granted and the chair then recognized Mr. 
Lawrence Cooper, chairperson of the organization. He mentioned the 
role of the coalition, reviewed its purposes, and then called on Mrs. Eva 
Clayton, who spoke on behalf of the coalition urging that the school be 
located at North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University. 

Mr. Julius Chambers presented a substitute motion "that the Board 
postpone consideration of the main motion until further studies could be 
conducted." Mr. Brown seconded the motion which failed to carry. After 
further debate, the main motion was voted on and carried with Messrs. 
Brown, Chambers, and Randolph asking to be recorded as voting no. 

The report, dated 18 December 1974, was sent to Governor James E. 
Holshouser, Jr., Lieutenant Governor James B. Hunt, Jr., and Speaker of 
the House of Representatives James C. Green. It established the Veterin- 
ary School at North Carolina State University at Raleigh subject to ap- 
propriation of funds by the General Assembly, and among its six points, 
Number 5 was as follows: 

The Chancellors of North Carolina State University at Raleigh and 
of North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University will 
examine and report to this Board on the feasibility, cost, benefits, 
and the recommendations for locating at North Carolina Agricul- 
tural and Technical State University a related activity that would 
complement the School of Veterinary Medicine in its educational 
and service roles and enable the fuller utilization of the capacities of 
North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University to con- 
tribute to the health and productivity of the animal population of the 
State. 



[202] The Multicampus University of North Carolina 

The brochure that was sent to the General Assembly contained much 
information on veterinarians for North Carolina: current sources of vet- 
erinarians; the movement for a veterinary school for North Carolina; 
southeastern response to veterinary medical education needs and its rele- 
vance for North Carolina; costs of a school of veterinary medicine; the 
North Carolina State University at Raleigh proposal; the North Carolina 
Agricultural and Technical State University proposal; racial-impact pro- 
jection for the school of veterinary medicine; and findings and action. 

Mr. William H. Thomas, director of the Office for Civil Rights, De- 
partment of Health, Education and Welfare in Atlanta, continued to ask 
questions about the location of the school of veterinary medicine. He was 
sent documentation that he requested in January 1975. He was still making 
inquiries in April of that year and an additional response was sent to him. 

In June 1975 the General Assembly ratified House Bill 102 and appro- 
priated $500,000 for the fiscal year 1976-77 for "Planning and Develop- 
ing a School of Veterinary Medicine at North Carolina State University." 
During the remainder of that year, Dr. Terrence M. Curtin, head of the 
Department of Veterinary Science and director of the Veterinary Medi- 
cine Program, was busy with the selection of an architectural firm, con- 
ferences with veterinary medical educators of national prominence con- 
cerning a basic curriculum and administrative organization for the school, 
and selecting a site for the location of the school. The North Carolina 
State University Dairy Research Farm on Hillsborough Street adjacent to 
the State Fairground was selected as the location. Dr. Curtin was chosen 
dean of the school. 

The General Assembly of 1977 appropriated sufficient funds for Phase 
1 of the building program and continued the appropriation of $500,000 
for the current operation of the school. The legislative session of 1979 
appropriated the remaining amount needed to complete Phase 2 of the 
building program. In the publication, Long Range Planning, igy6-ig8i, of 
the Board of Governors, the board reaffirmed its commitment: "to examine 
and consider the feasibility, cost, and benefits of locating at North Caro- 
lina Agricultural and Technical State University a related activity that 
would complement the School of Veterinary Medicine in its educational 
and service roles and enable the fuller utilization of the capacities of 
North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University." 

The board also made a commitment to request funding for a program 
of veterinary medical scholarships numbering at least five for each class 
for needy students to study veterinary medicine; furthermore, the board 
made a commitment to support cooperation among North Carolina Ag- 
ricultural and Technical State University, the University of North Caro- 
lina at Chapel Hill, and North Carolina State University at Raleigh in 
planning the instructional, research, and continuing education programs 



Expansion of Medical Education [ 20 3] 

of the school of veterinary medicine in such a way as to utilize their pro- 
fessional interests and competencies in building the school "upon the 
strengths of the whole University." The physical plant of the school was 
completed by 1982, and the first class of thirty-seven was awarded the 
degree, Doctor of Veterinary Medicine, at the commencement in May 

1985. 

North Carolina Agricultural and Technical University received alloca- 
tions for an animal-science facility in the amount of $7,000,000, which 
has been completed. 

The total state appropriation for constructing and equipping the vet- 
erinary school was over $31,600,000. The state appropriation for operat- 
ing the school for 1985-86 was $15,705,275. 

The Office for Civil Rights (OCR) could not let the veterinary school 
matter rest. Mr. Peter Holmes, director of OCR, had specifically advised 
President Friday, on 3 October 1975, that his office had no objection to 
locating the school in Raleigh. In spite of this fact, Mr. David S. Tatel, the 
next director of OCR, with full knowledge of his predecessor's decision, 
gratuitously suggested to President Friday in a letter on 25 June 1978, that 
the decision be reconsidered and the school be located at North Carolina 
Agricultural and Technical State University. President Friday sent him a 
two-page letter on 26 June, explaining the history of the location and tell- 
ing him "that matter is closed," with a copy to Governor Hunt. Mr. Tatel 
would not be satisfied and wrote to President Friday on 10 July, explain- 
ing his attempt to be helpful. The next day, 11 July, HEW Secretary 
Joseph A. Califano, Jr., who had been receiving copies of the correspon- 
dence, put an end to Mr. Tatel's game with the following letter to Gover- 
nor Hunt: 

Dear Jim: 

To remove any ambiguity in the correspondence between David Tatel 
and Bill Friday of June 21, June 26 and July 10, let me assure you that 
we will stand behind our commitment, which was made by Peter 
Holmes, a former Director of the Office for Civil Rights, with re- 
spect to the veterinary school being placed at North Carolina State 
University at Raleigh. What you choose to do with that school is en- 
tirely up to you. Our overriding concern is compliance with the 
agreement we accepted conditionally and I know you will work in 
good faith with Bill Friday to live up to that agreement. 

Sincerely, 
(signed) Joe 

Joseph A. Califano, Jr. 
cc: David Tatel 
Bill Friday 



CHAPTER 12 

Title 6 

The University vs. the Federal Government 



In the decade following 17 May 1954, when the Supreme Court of the 
United States in the case of Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka ruled 
that racially segregated public schools violate the equal protection re- 
quirements of the Fourteenth Amendment, there was uneven progress 
among the southern states in desegregating their public systems of higher 
education. In some states, especially in the deep south, there was massive 
resistance; in others, there was dilatory legal maneuvering; and in still 
others, there was eventual abolition of de jure segregation. 

Civil rights advocates of that era insisted that the mere elimination of 
de jure segregation was not sufficient. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 be- 
came the medium for pursuing the elimination of discriminatory prac- 
tices as well as the pursuit of "affirmative action" to overcome the vestiges 
of past discrimination. Title 6 of the act reads as follows: "No person in 
the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, 
be excluded from participation in, or be denied the benefits of, or be sub- 
jected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal 
financial assistance." 

The Department of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW) was made 
responsible for enforcing Title 6 in the case of educational institutions 
that received federal financial assistance. Initially the department concen- 
trated on desegregating public schools, but in 1969 HEW began to inves- 
tigate ten states that had had racially dual systems of higher education. 
HEW determined that unacceptable vestiges of segregation persisted in 
all ten of the states, and all were advised of their obligations under Title 6 
and asked to submit statewide plans for fully "desegregating" their 
higher education systems. 

On 16 February 1970 Mr. Leon E. Panetta, director of the HEW Office 
for Civil Rights (OCR), wrote to Governor Robert W. Scott and to the 
chairman of the State Board of Education informing them of OCR's con- 
clusion that the public four-year colleges and universities in North Caro- 

[204] 



The University vs. the Federal Government [ 20 S] 

lina were clearly identifiable as serving students on the basis of race. He 
pointed out that the traditionally white state institutions (TWIs) had a 
combined enrollment that was approximately ninety-eight percent white, 
and the traditionally black institutions (TBIs) had an enrollment that was 
almost exclusively black. He offered further evidence in support of the 
assertion that North Carolina was maintaining a racially dual system of 
higher education. And then he stated a basic thesis that came to be the 
central issue in a long dispute: "To fulfill the purposes and intent of the 
Civil Rights Act of 1964, it is not sufficient that an institution maintain a 
nondiscriminatory admissions policy if the student population continues 
to reflect the formerly de jure racial identification of that institution." 

North Carolina, at the beginning of the dispute, maintained that all of 
its segregation laws had been repealed in 1957 and that considerable time 
would be required to achieve integration of a system in which enrollment 
was voluntary. North Carolina also questioned the propriety of including 
within HEW's mandate the system of community colleges, none of which 
ever had been operated on a racially segregated basis. 

Mr. Panetta directed Governor Scott and the chairman of the State 
Board of Education, under whose jurisdiction the community colleges 
were included, to submit the outline of a desegregation plan for the pub- 
lic institutions of higher education in North Carolina within 120 days, 
and a final desegregation plan for the approval of OCR "no later than 90 
days after you have received comments on the outline of the plan." He 
made numerous suggestions as to the sources from which the state could 
get aid in formulating its plan, including "my staff." He further sug- 
gested that Dr. Eloise Severinson, Regional Civil Rights Director in 
Charlottesville, Virginia, would be the person to contact for any infor- 
mation or assistance. 

Dr. Severinson had already sent letters to North Carolina institutions 
suggesting an outline that they should use in responding to OCR's re- 
quest for plans. It included: (1) the institution should have a stated policy 
of equal employment opportunity; (2) student recruitment policies should 
be reviewed to make sure that there were no discriminatory practices; 
(3) there should be increased cooperation with high school counselors 
and increased financial assistance to disadvantaged minority groups; (4) 
discriminatory prerequisites and stipulations should be removed from all 
scholarships; (5) policies and procedures regarding "high risk" students 
should be reviewed and modified, if necessary; (6) recruitment efforts for 
black faculty should be comparable to white; and (7) institutions should 
be sure that employers who recruit on campus do not discriminate. 

Some of the college presidents did respond to Dr. Severinson's letter, in- 
cluding Presidents Leo Jenkins, East Carolina University; Marion Thorpe, 



[206] The Multicampus University of North Carolina 

Elizabeth City State University; Charles "A" Lyons, Jr., Fayetteville 
State University; Albert Whiting, North Carolina Central University; 
English Jones, Pembroke State University; and William Friday, on behalf 
of the six institutions that then comprised the University of North Caro- 
lina. President Lyons's letter was especially eloquent and poignant. He 
closed by saying, "There is a certain expectation which we all have of this 
[Fayetteville State University] and all other such institutions, but I believe 
firmly that there has to be a change in the way that these institutions are 
viewed from the vantage point of those who sit on the thrones of eco- 
nomic and political power before substantial progress along the lines 
about which we are now discussing can take place." 

On 13 April 1970 President Friday sent Dr. Severinson a response to a 
number of letters that she had written to him respecting the civil rights 
compliance reviews by HEW at five campuses of the university. He re- 
sponded to her inquiries about publicizing policies of equal opportunity, 
recruitment of black students, contacts with high school counselors, re- 
cruitment of black faculty, establishment of faculty consortia and ex- 
changes, nondiscriminatory recruitment by prospective employers, inter- 
collegiate sports competition, nondiscriminatory housing, financial and 
preparatory assistance for disadvantaged and "high risk" minority group 
students, assignment of student teachers, the Fort Bragg Extension Cen- 
ter, and the maintenance of records for subsequent review by OCR. 

Before any significant joinder of the issues could occur in this adminis- 
trative context, there was a highly important judicial intervention in the 
controversy. Civil rights groups were not satisfied with the activities of 
OCR and the leadership of HEW in carrying out its responsibilities for 
enforcing Title 6. Consequently, on 19 October 1970 a class action suit 
on behalf of black students was filed in the U.S. District Court for the 
District of Columbia against the department and OCR by the NAACP 
Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. (LDF). Known as Adams v. 
Richardson, the suit was designed to compel HEW to impose more rigor- 
ous requirements on the ten states for the desegregation of higher educa- 
tion or, failing the submission of satisfactory plans, to begin proceedings 
to cut off all federal funds to the states. The suit alleged that the secretary 
of HEW, Elliot Richardson, Mr. Panetta, and others had "refused to un- 
dertake action to secure compliance with Title VI by segregated public 
institutions of higher education." HEW lawyers argued at first for the 
dismissal of the case, maintaining that HEW had discretionary powers 
concerning what actions should be taken against the defaulting states. 
U.S. District Court Judge John Pratt heard the suit, and on 16 November 
1972, more than two years after it was filed, he issued a memorandum 
opinion: "It appears in certain areas about which plaintiffs complained, 



The University vs. the Federal Government [ 20 7] 

HEW has not properly fulfilled its obligations under Title VI ... to 
eliminate the vestiges of past policies and practices of segregation in pro- 
grams receiving Federal financial assistance." The main decision came on 
16 February 1973: "The continuation of HEW financial assistance to the 
segregated systems of higher education in the ten states violates the rights 
of the plaintiffs." Judge Pratt ordered HEW to begin enforcement pro- 
ceedings within 120 days. 

On appeal, the basic decision was upheld, but it was modified to allow 
the states to submit desegregation plans before the initiation of enforce- 
ment proceedings. The National Association for Equal Opportunity 
(NAFEO), a group of 114 predominantly black colleges and universities 
that supported TBIs, filed a "friends of the court" brief with the appellate 
court, requesting dismissal of the suit on the ground that it implied the 
TBIs also practiced segregation. The group evidently feared for the fu- 
ture of the TBIs if desegregation and integration were literally and strictly 
pursued. 

Before the appellate decision was announced, Mr. Peter Holmes, who 
had become director of OCR, wrote to President Friday requesting a plan 
from the University of North Carolina by 1 1 June 1973. 

This was the first approach of OCR to the newly structured sixteen- 
campus university. It was a matter that would come to preempt much of 
the energy, emotion, and money of the Board of Governors for more 
than a decade. The OCR had paid little attention to North Carolina in the 
three years since it had called for information concerning the desegrega- 
tion of the public universities and the community colleges. During this 
interlude the sixteen institutions had all been merged into one university, 
which made it a much easier target for OCR. 

In the spring of 1973 the General Administration of the newly restruc- 
tured university assembled a document entitled A State Program to Enlarge 
Educational Opportunity in North Carolina. Much of the material previ- 
ously had been accumulated by the Board of Higher Education and its 
director, Dr. Cameron P. West, who had since become vice president for 
planning at the university. The material was considered by the ad hoc 
Long-Range Planning Committee under the chairmanship of Dr. Hugh 
Daniel, Jr. He presented it to the board on 1 1 May 1973 and moved that it 
be accepted as the official response from the University of North Caro- 
lina to OCR by 1 1 June 1973. Dr. Daniel stated that the development of 
the document extended over a thirty-nine month period and had entailed 
twenty drafts. The first eleven drafts had been prepared by the Board of 
Higher Education at the direction of Governor Scott and with the coop- 
eration of representatives of the State Board of Education and the Depart- 
ment of Community Colleges, the presidents of the nine regional univer- 



[208] The Multicampus University of North Carolina 

sides, the president and chancellors of the six-campus university, and the 
School of the Arts. Following the reorganization of higher education, it 
had been further refined under the direction of the Long Range Planning 
Committee of the Board of Governors and in liaison with representatives 
of the Department of Community Colleges. The long delay since Febru- 
ary 1970 had been due, according to Dr. Daniel, to a number of factors: 
(1) failure of federal authorities to enunciate a unified and coherent policy 
regarding compliance requirements; (2) delays in North Carolina because 
of the reorganization of higher education; and (3) caution on the part of 
North Carolina leaders to pursue a program which might have the unin- 
tended effect of harming any public institution. He pointed out that the 
report stated categorically, "in the process of elimination of historically 
racially-based duplication, merger of institutions will not be required." 

This initial 1973 plan called for: intensified efforts on all campuses to 
recruit minority students and faculty; remedial programs where needed; 
additional student financial-aid funds; increased cooperation between 
campuses, including faculty and student exchange programs; programs 
to prepare blacks to take advantage of vocational and professional oppor- 
tunities; and a clearly stated policy prohibiting discrimination in admis- 
sions and employment. Dr. Daniel said that the 40-page report (plus over 
one hundred pages of appendices) "satisfies and will be accepted by OCR 
as a positive and legitimate response. ... It entails not only what we 
must do but what we should do as a Board of Governors acting for the 
State of North Carolina." 

Dr. Daniel's motion that the Board of Governors adopt the report was 
objected to by Mr. Victor Bryant. Mr. John R. Jordan, Jr., offered a sub- 
stitute motion that called for further consideration of the matter, with ac- 
tion to be deferred until the 1 1 June meeting. The chairman stated that the 
proposed program would be explained and discussed on Thursday eve- 
ning, 8 June, in anticipation of the 11 June meeting. 

At the June meeting of the board the recommendation of the Long 
Range Planning Committee that the State Program to Enlarge Educational 
Opportunity in North Carolina be adopted was approved. An analysis of the 
document shows evidence of the many revisions that it had undergone. 

On 10 November 1973 Mr. Peter Holmes, director of OCR, requested 
Governor Holshouser to inform the State Board of Education and the 
Board of Governors of the University of North Carolina that the plan was 
not sufficient. He asked the governor to direct the two agencies to engage 
in "a closely coordinated effort to develop a comprehensive, detailed and 
workable plan for the desegregation of the North Carolina Higher Edu- 
cation System." By the terms of the appellate court decision, HEW was 
given three hundred days to begin proceedings against any state that had 



The University vs. the Federal Government [209] 

not submitted a plan. That decision of the appellate court was announced 
on 12 June 1973, and the state therefore had until 8 April 1974 to submit 
a plan. 

At the 16 November meeting of the Board of Governors, President Fri- 
day reported on the 10 November letter from Mr. Holmes. He requested 
and was given authority to employ additional staff, if necessary, to meet 
the HEW deadline. Mr. John L. Sanders, director of the Institute of Gov- 
ernment in the university at Chapel Hill, had joined the staff of the Gen- 
eral Administration as vice president for planning on 1 November. He and 
Mr. Richard H. Robinson, legal assistant to the president, went to work 
to produce another plan. 

On 13 December several members of the General Administration staff 
met with Mr. Holmes in the Atlanta office of OCR. The purpose of the 
meeting was to help clarify the guidelines for planning. Instead, the meet- 
ing had the opposite effect. It was at this point that OCR's major ambiva- 
lence with respect to the problem of desegregation first emerged. Mr. 
Holmes emphasized that the states should be "color-blind" about their 
institutions of higher learning but that the traditionally black institutions 
might also maintain their "racial identifiability." From this point on in its 
negotiations with OCR, the university was caught between OCR's de- 
mand for "more integration" and at the same time insistence on racial 
identifiability. 

The staff of the General Administration produced its part of the plan, 
which was later joined by a part prepared by the community colleges, 
and the composite was presented by Governor Holshouser to OCR under 
the date of 8 February 1974 with the title, The North Carolina State Plan 
for the Further Elimination of Racial Duality in the Public Postsecondary Educa- 
tion Systems. The plan was sent to members of the Board of Governors for 
review several days before the 8 February meeting at which it was adopted. 
Mr. Julius Chambers explained his concern that the predominantly white 
institutions would drain the predominantly black institutions of their 
better faculty members and students, and for that and other expressed 
reasons he voted against the plan. Mr. W. W. Taylor, Jr., asked that the 
record show that he voted against the motion "on philosophical and con- 
stitutional grounds." He asserted that he had "no objection ... on any 
racial ground." 

The 242-page text of the plan expressed the mutual objectives of the 
university and the community college system: to induce a larger percent- 
age of black citizens to avail themselves of postsecondary opportunities; 
to ensure that the quality of educational opportunities provided for black 
and white citizens is equally high; and to encourage further integration. 
The document also included over 350 pages of appendices and exhib- 



[2io] The Multicampus University of North Carolina 

its. Semiannual progress reports to OCR over the next four years were 
promised. 

The plan was forwarded to Mr. Holmes on 14 February and included 
everything except enrollment goals. He responded on 8 April and noted 
that the court order had been changed, extending the deadline until 21 
June. Furthermore, he asked that revisions be made in the plan, especially 
to provide greater specificity and commitment to progress earlier in the 
planning period. 

In a regular session of the Board of Governors on 8 March 1974 the 
plan was first amended to provide enrollment projections through 1977. 
Care was taken to indicate that enrollment projections were not firm 
quotas that absolutely bound the university, and that they might be sub- 
ject to change from year to year. 

The General Administration continued to work toward satisfying Mr. 
Holmes's 14 February request for "greater specificity and commitment to 
progress earlier in the planning period." In a special session of the board 
on 3 1 May an amended plan entitled The Revised North Carolina State Plan 
for the Further Elimination of Racial Duality in the Public Postsecondary State 
Systems was presented by Dr. Daniel, chairman of the Committee on 
Educational Planning, Policies and Programs. Certain commitments 
were made for future studies and reports to OCR. The revised report was 
quite similar to the 8 February report. Before the plan was adopted, Mr. 
Victor Bryant offered a motion, which was defeated 14-9, that would 
have prefaced the plan with a resolution including the following: "This 
Board of Governors necessarily retains its freedom to act . . . in such 
manner as its judgment dictates to be in the best interests of the citizens of 
North Carolina and the students attending the University." 

Mr. Holmes continued to be difficult to convince. On 18 June after 
Governor Holshouser had transmitted the revised plan, Mr. Holmes 
made a telephone call to the governor in which he asked for certain clari- 
fications and explanations of various provisions of the revised plan. The 
governor turned his inquiry over to President Friday the same day, and 
President Friday proceeded to prepare for Mr. Holmes a seven-page reply 
that explained, once again, the commitments that seemed to be misun- 
derstood: commitments about further studies that the board intended to 
make, including racial-impact studies, a study of the "resource disparities 
between the predominantly black institutions and their white counter- 
parts," the board's record of abolishing differentials in the case of state- 
financed construction at TBI and TWI campuses, and an agreement to 
study and evaluate instances of racially-based duplication of programs; 
assurances that the board would not tolerate instances of discrimination; 
and the establishment of an academic position-listing service and a fac- 



The University vs. the Federal Government [ 2I1 ] 

ulty applicant-listing service to make the availability of positions more 
widely known. 

President Friday's reply must have satisfied Mr. Holmes, at least for the 
time being. On 21 June, three days after President Friday wrote his letter, 
OCR accepted the revised plan. In a icjjuly letter Mr. Holmes stated "We 
are accepting your plan because we believe it contains a process by which 
significant desegregation will be achieved over the next several years and 
which furnishes both State officials and this office with a mechanism for 
measuring progress and monitoring compliance." 

Everything seemed to be going smoothly between the university and 
OCR until a controversy over the location of the veterinary school devel- 
oped. An account of this controversy, and the reaction of Mr. William 
Thomas of the Atlanta office of OCR, will be found in chapter 11. After 
the decision had been made to locate the school at North Carolina State 
University instead of North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State 
University, Mr. Thomas wrote to President Friday on 25 March 1975 and 
complained that because there had been "no racial impact study per- 
formed on the proposal . . . the process which you employed to deter- 
mine the location of the School of Veterinary Medicine is defective." 
President Friday remarked in his response on 29 April "You expect plan- 
ning and program decisions of the Board of Governors to be predicated 
apparently exclusively in deference to the racial implications . . . of any 
issue under consideration." This, President Friday emphasized, "has 
never been the University's intention." 

After the veterinary school was approved and its location at North 
Carolina State University determined, the attitude of the Office for Civil 
Rights appeared to stiffen. On 3 1 July 1975, OCR sent a detailed analysis 
of North Carolina's compliance plan to Governor Holshouser and pro- 
nounced it unacceptable. Toward the end of his long letter, Mr. Martin 
Gerry, acting director of OCR, announced this decision: "Accordingly, if 
this office does not receive within ten days from the date of this letter that 
the State of North Carolina has acted to fulfill its affirmative obligation to 
eliminate the dual system of postsecondary education in the State, I will 
have no alternative but to refer this matter to the Department's Office of 
General Counsel for the initiation of formal administrative enforcement 
proceedings against the state." 

In response, Governor Holshouser, on 18 August, sent Mr. Gerry a re- 
port from the university and from the Department of Community Col- 
leges with the observation that "these reports, together with the July 31 
semiannual reports, which I sent to the Office for Civil Rights on August 
5, document the substantial progress that the State of North Carolina has 
made in meeting the commitment contained in the Revised North Carolina 



[212] The Multicampus University of North Carolina 

State Plan" The university had projected annual desegregation goals for 
each of its institutions, which had been approved by the Office for Civil 
Rights. In the response of the university, it was pointed out that in all 
cases the constituent institutions had met and, in some cases, substan- 
tially exceeded their student desegregation goals for the fall of 1974. The 
response evidently mollified the OCR officials who agreed to continue 
negotiation instead of beginning administrative proceedings. 

On 1 August 1975 additional pressure was placed on HEW when the 
Legal Defense Fund, of the NAACP filed a motion against all accepted 
plans on behalf of the Adams plaintiffs. They claimed to have found little 
evidence of even minimal progress toward desegregation and called on the 
court to require HEW to revoke its approval of the plans from a number 
of southern states and require those states to submit new plans. In addi- 
tion, the motion requested the court to require HEW to issue uniform 
guidelines for drafting the new plans. This motion was initiated at about 
the time Secretary Caspar Weinberger replaced Secretary David Mathews 
as head of HEW. It was not decided by Judge Pratt for almost two years. 

President Friday reported to the Board of Governors on 26 September 
that he had talked to Secretary Mathews on several occasions about the 
HEW matter, and that a meeting had been scheduled with Mr. Peter 
Holmes, director of OCR, for members of the General Administration 
staff to go to Washington to discuss the university's position and explore 
HEW's reactions. He thought that this invitation indicated a genuine 
effort by HEW to resolve the differences, and it was his opinion that the 
department was acting in good faith. At this same meeting in executive 
session, Chairman Dees reminded the board of the new lawsuit, Adams et 
al. v. Weinberger et al., pending in the District of Columbia federal court. 
He pointed out that while the university was not a party to the lawsuit, 
the university's recent relationship with HEW had been a consequence of 
the litigation. A motion was passed instructing the chairman to appoint 
a committee to study the recent brief and make a recommendation to 
the board at a later date. Mr. Dees appointed Messrs. William A. John- 
son, John R. Jordan, Jr., and Thomas J. White, Jr., as members of the 
committee. 

At a special meeting of the Board of Governors on 24 October, Chair- 
man Dees called on Mr. Johnson, chairman of the committee appointed 
at the previous meeting, to report to the board on the case of Adams v. 
Weinberger. Mr. Johnson stated that the committee had arrived at four rec- 
ommendations and moved that the Board of Governors: file a motion for 
leave to intervene in the case as soon as possible; request assistance of the 
North Carolina attorney general in preparing for legal proceedings; em- 
ploy private counsel to appear on behalf of the University of North Caro- 



The University vs. the Federal Government [ 2I 3] 

lina in association with the attorney general; and request authorization 
and funds from the appropriate officials. The motion was approved. 

The board employed the legal firm of Williams and Jensen of Washing- 
ton, D.C.; however, Mr. Andrew A. Vanore, Jr., of the attorney general's 
staff, advised the board and the state not to intervene since it would place 
the state under the jurisdiction of the U.S. District Court for the District 
of Columbia rather than a court in North Carolina. 

At the 14 November meeting of the Board of Governors, Mr. Johnson 
stated that "as a result of further study and consultation," the committee 
recommended against seeking leave to intervene in the case. The board 
on a motion decided not to intervene and that further consideration of the 
question be deferred. 

During the remainder of 1975 and 1976, as reported by President Fri- 
day at a later date, 8 April 1977: "We were given frequent oral assurances 
that North Carolina was performing well under its State plan, and in fact, 
North Carolina was pointed out by the Director of the Office for Civil 
Rights as a model which other affected states might appropriately emu- 
late," and still later, 15 July, 1977, he told the Board of Governors that 
conversations with HEW in 1975 and 1976 "produced — we thought — a 
mutual set of understandings and a good working pattern of cooperation. 
We were repeatedly given verbal assurances that our plan was sound, and 
that we were making good progress in carrying it out." 

On 1 1 June 1976 the Board of Governors approved a document entitled 
A Comparative Study of the Historically Black Constituent Institutions of The 
University of North Carolina. The purpose of the study was to supply evi- 
dence to OCR "that resources provided by the State to traditionally-black 
institutions are comparable to those provided at all other State institutions 
of similar size, level and specialization." 

In the 1974 state plan, the Board of Governors made a commitment to 
study and identify the strengths and deficiencies of the five TBIs. Each of 
the five was asked to prepare a self-study. These studies revealed the great 
need for providing remedial instruction to many students who entered 
those institutions with academic deficiencies. The comparative study 
confirmed the opinions of the separate institutions. The general conclu- 
sion of the study was that the five TBIs appeared to compare favorably 
with the other institutions in such factors as salaries, facilities, and as- 
signment of programs; however, there was a consistent difference in aca- 
demic preparation of a large proportion of their entering classes as mea- 
sured by the SAT scores and high-school class standing when compared 
on these factors with students entering TWIs. 

As a result of the comparative study, the Board of Governors directed 
the president to make a comprehensive review of remedial activity in the 



[214] The Multicampus University of North Carolina 

university. This study was made by Dr. Junius A. Davis of the Center for 
Educational Research and Evaluation of the Research Triangle Institute. 
The study, entitled Remedial Educational Activities of The University of 
North Carolina: 1976, was presented to the General Administration in June 
1977. It found that "some type of remedial activity was in progress in all 
of the fifteen constituent institutions" (the School of the Arts was not 
studied). 

In the years following the Revised State Plan filed with OCR in 1974, 
the university continued to make a semiannual report on its activities to- 
ward the elimination of racial duality. The remedial education study was 
duly reported. 

In November 1976, Mr. Martin Gerry, who was at that time acting di- 
rector of OCR, made a speech to the Southern Educational Foundation in 
Atlanta, in which he vigorously criticized the execution of the desegrega- 
tion plans that had been filed by the southern states in 1974. Evidently he 
was later called on to make a deposition by the plaintiffs in the Adams 
case because of his highly critical views. This case had been pending in 
the U.S. District Court since 1975, and an opinion from Judge Pratt was 
anticipated. Mr. Gerry's deposition on Thursday, 13 January 1977, was 
guided by Mr. John Silard of the Washington legal firm of Rauh, Silard 
and Lichtman, who were the attorneys for the plaintiffs in the Adams 
case. Mr. Silard, who evidently had an official transcript of Mr. Gerry's 
remarks, guided him skillfully to bring out all of his criticisms of the 
plans and activities up to that time in the interest of eliminating racial du- 
ality in higher education. Technically, Mr. Gerry was a defendant in the 
Adams litigation; however, he turned out to be an enthusiastic witness for 
the plaintiffs. He condemned HEW's past actions "as inefficient, uncoor- 
dinated, and insufficient and stated that the State Plans were 'legally ade- 
quate' but that State performance under the Plans had been inadequate in 
terms of policies and practices concerning black students, black colleges 
and black faculties." He advocated that there be some uniform standards 
that states would be required to follow in preparing desegregation plans. 
From this date forward over the next three years, the Adams case became 
not a controversy between HEW and the Adams plaintiffs but a con- 
frontation between HEW and the University of North Carolina. HEW 
dropped the legal role it was supposed to perform in assisting institutions 
to meet their obligations and took up the adversarial role of coercion. 

Mr. Gerry had said that the desegregation plans submitted by the states 
lacked "clarity and specificity" and that HEW should "get about the 
business of changing them." Judge Pratt evidently agreed with him and 
on 17 January issued a directive to the plaintiffs in the Adams case and 
HEW to submit to the court by 1 March a draft of a prospective court 



The University vs. the Federal Government [ 2I 5] 

order. The order was to require that new plans be submitted based on 
specific criteria regarding the racial mix of faculties, the enrollment of 
blacks in TWIs, and the enhancement of TBIs. The plaintiffs and HEW 
could not agree on a draft and submitted separate documents. The plain- 
tiffs suggested a prospective court order and HEW requested more time. 

On i April 1977, Judge Pratt at last ruled on the August 1975 Adams 
petition as follows: "The Court finds that . . . plans did not meet impor- 
tant desegregation requirements and have failed to achieve significant 
progress toward higher education desegregation." Judge Pratt found, 
based largely on OCR's statements, that "defendants are continuing to 
grant federal aid to public higher education systems which have not 
achieved desegregation or submitted acceptable and adequate plans." He 
ordered that HEW must, therefore, develop new criteria for the elimina- 
tion of racial duality and the enhancement of TBIs and require new plans 
based on those criteria. 

A week later President Friday addressed the Board of Governors con- 
cerning Judge Pratt's ruling. The following sets the tone of the address: 
"We have tried to maintain and improve all of our constituent institu- 
tions — historically black and historically white — recognizing that time is 
required to change the racial identifiability of institutions since there is, in 
higher education, no authority for student assignment. But the court has 
now found that approach to be legally deficient." Judge Pratt's order, he 
said, means that, "it is the responsibility of HEW to devise criteria for 
higher education desegregation plans which will take into account the 
unique importance of black colleges and, at the same time, comply with 
the congressional mandate" (Title 6). President Friday took up the subject 
again with the Board of Governors on 15 July 1977, as follows: "We are 
confronted, therefore, with the assertion that we are in violation of Title 6 
because we maintain a racially dual or segregated system, and we are si- 
multaneously told to maintain racial duality." No one knew how to re- 
solve this paradox but at a later hearing, counsel for HEW told the Judge, 
"there is no truth to the fact that we are trying to eliminate the black in- 
stitutions. What we are trying to do is to eliminate the identifiability of 
black institutions as black institutions." On 2 July 1977, Mr. David Tatel, 
a person of great zeal who was now the new director of OCR in President 
Carter's administration, transmitted to Governor Hunt HEW's new crite- 
ria: Criteria Specifying the Ingredients of Acceptable Plans to Desegregate State 
Systems of Public Higher Education. 

At the beginning of the Adams case, although HEW was the defendant 
in the litigation, the following ten states were its objectives: Arkansas, 
Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, Ok- 
lahoma, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. In 1973, when HEW issued guide- 



[2i6] The Multicampus University of North Carolina 

lines to these states for the preparation of state plans, North Carolina, 
Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Maryland, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, and 
Virginia submitted plans that were approved. The original ten states were 
known as "Adams states." Four of these — Louisiana, Mississippi, Mary- 
land because of subsequent litigation, and Pennsylvania because it 
reached an accord with OCR — had dropped out of the group by the time 
Judge Pratt announced his ruling on I August 1977. 

Vice President Dawson made the following statement respecting the 
Adams states on 21 October 1977 to the University of North Carolina at 
Chapel Hill Faculty Council: 

There are some conspicuous and curious absentees in the original 
list of Adams states. Tennessee was not included because of separate 
litigation brought against it by reason of a decision to build a new 
campus of the University of Tennessee in Nashville. Never explained, 
however, is the absence of Alabama, Kentucky, South Carolina, and 
Texas, who have never been asked to submit any plan or, to my 
knowledge, to answer any inquiry. Neither, may I add, have any pri- 
vate institutions, although in private higher education a racially dual 
system exists and private institutions are the beneficiaries of federal 
financial assistance. They remain, however, privileged sanctuaries in 
HEW's enforcement measure under Title VI. 

After the announcement of Judge Pratt's decision, HEW notified North 
Carolina and the other five southern states that their higher education de- 
segregation plans were inadequate. In ninety days HEW had transmitted 
to the six states the Criteria. Each state was required to submit a revised 
desegregation plan within sixty days and HEW to accept or reject each 
plan within 120 days. The plaintiffs were to have timely access to all plans 
submitted. 

In the meantime, the Criteria had been amended on 1 1 August as ap- 
plied to the six southern states, and numerical goals and timetables, which 
would be indices by which to measure progress toward the objective of 
eliminating racial segregation, were added. It also required that "educa- 
tionally unnecessary program duplication" be eliminated without defin- 
ing what was meant by this phrase. Because Title 6 authorized the depart- 
ment to issue rules, regulations, and orders but provided that they should 
not become effective unless and until approved by the president, and be- 
cause the president had delegated this authority to the attorney general, 
and because neither the Criteria nor the revised Criteria had been ap- 
proved by either the president or the attorney general, there was some 
doubt as to the legality of the procedure; however, HEW could argue that 
it was operating under a federal court order. 



The University vs. the Federal Government [217] 

The Board of Governors responded quickly to the new Criteria and, on 
22 August, adopted the Revised North Carolina State Plan for the Further 
Elimination of Racial Duality in Public Higher Education Systems, Phase II: 
1978-1983. 

Chairman William A. Johnson stated to the board, with obvious satis- 
faction, that the plan "which we have before us for consideration this 
morning is perhaps the most important single document presented to this 
Board for action since it came into being on July 1, 1972. In my opinion it 
is the finest piece of work which President Friday and his staff have ac- 
complished on any assignment undertaken during the more than five 
years which have elapsed since this Board assumed responsibility for the 
governance of The University of North Carolina." 

On 1 September the State Board of Education adopted a new plan for 
the community colleges, and the next day Governor Hunt sent both to 
OCR. In the meantime, the state was called on to continue following the 
1974 plan and to report on it until action was taken on the new plan. 

At the meeting of the Board of Governors on 22 August 1977, Mr. 
Julius Chambers, one of the original members of the board, who was also 
president of the NAACP's Legal Defense Fund, which was aiding the 
plaintiffs in the Adams case, resigned before action was taken on the re- 
vised plan. He stated that he did not resign at the request of anyone and 
that he did not resign because of newspaper criticism, nor did he "see any 
conflict between the work on the Board of Governors and his work with 
the Legal Defense Fund." He said further, "I have tried to weigh my role 
as a member on the Board and my role as a member off the Board, and 
my decision is based on my belief that I can best serve in a role off the 
Board rather than on." After receiving some expressions of appreciation, 
Mr. Chambers withdrew from the meeting. 

In preparing State Plan, Phase II, a document of 145 pages, the board 
identified and sought to respond to the "underlying objectives of the Cri- 
teria.^ The board rejected the ''Criteria's assertion that The University of 
North Carolina remains 'segregated.'" Furthermore, it refused to accept 
those Criteria that it found "legally unnecessary or educationally un- 
sound, or that establish measures of progress toward the further elimina- 
tion of racial duality that are arbitrary, mechanistic, or unrealistic." 

The board asserted that the university would do the following to pro- 
mote the further elimination of racial duality: 

1. Work to increase the enrollment of black students; 

2. Seek to increase the enrollment of black students at "tradition- 
ally white university institutions and of white students at tradi- 
tionally black university institutions"; 



[21 8] The Multicampus University oj North Carolina 

3. Seek to increase the successful undergraduate matriculation of 
black students by providing needed remedial programs and seeking 
additional support for such programs; 

4. Continue its effort to expand graduate and professional education 
opportunities for black persons; and 

5. Continue its efforts to increase the attractiveness of all institutions 
to students of all races by increasing the multiraciality of their fa- 
cilities, staff, and governing boards. 

The plan devoted considerable attention to improvements that had 
been made in the traditionally black constituent institutions and com- 
mitted the Board of Governors to the following: 

1. Request again from the General Assembly funds to establish and 
maintain parity in the level of State funding for teaching positions 
among the comprehensive university and among the general bac- 
calaureate universities; 

2. Funds in the amount of $200,000 for paid doctoral study leaves 
would again be requested from the General Assembly; 

3. The Board would attempt to obtain an appropriation of $900,000 
from the General Assembly in 1978 for remedial education pro- 
grams; and 

4. A special study would be made in 1977-78 to identify any deficien- 
cies in the physical plants and in the plant maintenance programs at 
the traditionally black institutions. 

On 7 November 1977 President Friday received a letter from Mr. David 
Tatel, director of OCR, enclosing a written evaluation of State Plan, Phase 
//, which was to provide a basis for discussion about its revision. The 
evaluation followed the outline of the Criteria, and some items were 
marked with an asterisk to identify comments considered of particular 
importance. The implications of this document were immense and indi- 
cated a strict interpretation of the Criteria that boded trouble for the 
future. While the community colleges and technical institutes had also 
submitted a separate plan, the evaluation applied in the main to the uni- 
versity, although in a paragraph that was not marked "particularly impor- 
tant," better coordination was called for. 

Among many deficiencies the university was called on to remedy in its 
plan, the following were the most notable: 

1. The system of classifying colleges used by the University, it was 
alleged, does not permit the five TBIs to be compared to any of 
the State's leading institutions. 



The University vs. the Federal Government [ 2I 9] 

2. Give the specific steps which the State proposes for the further 
enhancement of the TBIs. 

3. The University maintains that each constituent institution has a 
statewide mission and apparently concludes there is no educa- 
tionally unnecessary program duplication. A more careful analysis 
which encompasses the Community Colleges is required by the 
criteria. 

4. The criteria require a commitment to give priority to locating 
new programs at TBIs. The rationale for some actions and inten- 
tions for future actions were called for. 

5. "The intent of (criteria) I. F. is to obtain a commitment from the 
State to advise HEW of major changes prior to the time that for- 
mal action is taken. The UNC document does not indicate that 
this notification will be provided in the timely fashion required by 
the criteria." 

6. The standards and guidelines for deciding on the location of pro- 
grams were called for. 

7. The University was called on to reconsider its decision not to 
submit a supplementary statement and provide OCR with a more 
concrete description of actions it will take to further the goals of 
the criteria. 

8. The University has not made a commitment that the proportion 
of black high school graduates who enter the constituent institu- 
tions will equal the proportion of white graduates. 

9. The University does not state goals for enrollment by the formula 
required in the criteria. 

10. HEW expected that "the disparity in the rates between black and 
white high school graduates entering the University TWIs will 
eventually be eliminated." To achieve an acceptable rate of reduc- 
tion within a five year period, the criteria required a reduction of 
50 percent in the disparity but "limit that requirement to a maxi- 
mum increase of 150 percent in the number of black first-time 
freshmen and first-time transfers above the 1976—77 figure. We 
calculate this to mean an increase of from 950 to 2,375 black stu- 
dents in the UNC" (TWIs). An enrollment projection was re- 
quested, and if it should fall short of the criteria calculation, "we 
will request that it be revised" to comply. 

11. OCR requested a change in the method of reporting graduate and 
professional enrollment. 



[220] The Multicampus University of North Carolina 

12. The State did not appear to OCR to have made the commitments 
for reporting required in the criteria. Included was the statement, 
"If good cause for failure to meet interim goals is not demon- 
strated, OCR may impose more stringent requirements, including 
advanced approval of OCR of desegregation methods in order to 
assure achievement of the goals of the plan." 

The severity and specificity of the evaluation were surprising. It ap- 
plied the Criteria literally. President Friday and Vice President Dawson 
met with Mr. Tatel and Mr. Burton Taylor of the HEW staff in Washing- 
ton on 9 November to explore the situation. They came away from the 
meeting with the impression that there were three central issues. There 
was no discussion of educationally unnecessary program duplication. 

In view of the nature of the evaluation, President Friday and Chairman 
Johnson, with the concurrence of Governor Hunt and President Ben Foun- 
tain of the Community College System, decided that a formal response 
should be made by the Board of Governors and the State Board of 
Education. 

On 1 1 November President Friday discussed Mr. Tatel's 7 November 
letter with the Board of Governors. He reviewed the history of the case 
and analyzed Mr. Tatel's objections, especially the 150 percent goal for 
increasing freshman and transfer enrollment in the ten TWIs by 1981-82, 
and he also stressed the insistence on the racial identifiability of institu- 
tions as of primary importance in educational planning and policy, "a 
premise that the Board has found unacceptable." He emphasized, "it is 
our belief that our plan is a legally and educationally sound response . . . 
and the one that serves the interest of all public higher education in our 
State." 

Vice President Dawson and his associates drafted a response to the 
evaluation, and the Board of Governors, which did not schedule meetings 
in December except in an emergency, met on 5 December to consider the 
report, Comments on the North Carolina Plan, Phase II, President Friday 
had conferred with Mr. Tatel on 16 November to discuss the evaluation. It 
appeared that there were three central issues requiring immediate atten- 
tion: (1) the policies and commitments of the Board of Governors with 
respect to the five TBIs; (2) the enrollment objectives, especially with ref- 
erence to increasing first-time registrations of black students 150 percent 
in five years in the TWIs; and (3) the monitoring of State Plan, Phase II, 
by OCR "in a manner consistent with the proper governance of the 
State's system of Public Higher Education, and particularly, the Board's 
concern about the prior notice statement in the criteria." The comments 
were largely in the form of a rebuttal to Mr. Tatel's allegations, and they 



The University vs. the Federal Government I 221 ] 

attempted to show how much the TBIs had progressed under the Board 
of Governors. It was insisted "that the State cannot . . . acknowledge a 
role tantamount to that of a supervising governing board as one either 
necessary or proper for the Office of Civil Rights in carrying out its obli- 
gations under Title VI." With respect to enrollment figures, the report 
asserted that the board was unable to understand the insistence of HEW 
"that the State enter into a commitment to achieve within a specified span 
of time that which evidence indicates cannot be achieved," and it rejected 
the requirement of prior notification of any program change as "an un- 
necessary and improper intrusion." In discussing the first point, the pol- 
icy of the board in dealing with duplication was made clear. 

After Comments on North Carolina State Plan, Phase II was transmitted 
to Mr. Tatel, he called President Friday, and it was agreed that he would 
meet for further discussions with the president and Vice Presidents Daw- 
son and Thompson on 1 5 December. Mr. Tatel brought up no new issues, 
and he informed them that he would either have to accept or reject their 
plan by 4 January 1978. Under the terms of the April Court Order, he 
was given 120 days to review a state's plan; 4 January was the end of that 
period. Mr. Tatel insisted that he would not ask the court for an exten- 
sion. The board was called by Chairman Johnson to meet on 30 De- 
cember 1977, the latest date for considering a response. The draft of a 
supplemental statement had been prepared. In the meantime, Mr. Tatel 
informed Governor Hunt on 23 December that he had secured a thirty- 
day extension of time, but he wanted the supplemental statement by 4 
January 1978 so that his office would have time to review it. In the Com- 
ments on the Community Colleges' Response to OCR's Evaluation, transmit- 
ted in Mr. Tatel's letter to Governor Hunt, it was noted that since TBIs 
offer two-year programs, the community colleges should make an analy- 
sis to determine whether educationally unnecessary program duplication 
exists and if so, the steps to take "to eliminate duplication in a manner 
consistent with the objective of strengthening the TBIs." 

At the 30 December meeting, President Friday noted that three subjects 
had been the focus of interest on 16 November. Those were (1) the mat- 
ters of enrollment projections and particularly the 150-percent rule; (2) 
the commitments of the Board of Governors with respect to the roles of 
the five TBIs; and (3) the prior notice provision in the criteria. The com- 
ments adopted on 5 December provided additional information and back- 
ground concerning the position taken in State Plan: Phase II on each of 
these matters. 

Mr. Friday then informed the board that on 5 December, the same day 
of their previous meeting, Mr. Tatel wrote to Congressman L. H. Foun- 
tain, with copies to the other members of the North Carolina Congres- 



[222] The Multicampus University of North Carolina 

sional Delegation, further explaining certain aspects of the Criteria and 
"particularly those same three matters to confirm and clarify what he had 
told Congressman Fountain and members of the North Carolina Con- 
gressional delegation in a meeting held with them on November 30." In 
the light of this development, which appeared to modify Mr. Tatel's 16 
November position, Mr. Friday had decided to ask the board to consider 
A Supplemental Statement to State Plan: Phase II. Mr. Friday stated that 
"we are not seeking any confrontation with HEW," and he suggested that 
"it is time now to conclude negotiations with OCR." It would be up to 
OCR "to rule on our plan one way or the other." 

The board approved the statement recommended by President Friday. 
It noted that new projections of overall enrollment figures which were 
given in the statement made the attainment of an 1 50-percent increase in 
black enrollment in the TWIs even more unrealistic, but that they would 
continue to work toward that goal with the understanding that failure to 
achieve it would not in itself be seen as noncompliance. (Discussion with 
Mr. Tatel had indicated that OCR would accept this.) On the issue that 
the proportion of black high-school graduates who enter public institu- 
tions of higher education should at least equal the proportion of white 
high-school graduates who enter such institutions, it was noted that there 
were no "artificial constraints of a racial nature" to prevent blacks from 
attending public institutions of higher education. Despite the efforts the 
university had made and the success it had had, the statement emphasized 
there were factors beyond the board's control that made it unlikely that 
"black student enrollment trends will satisfy the Department's Criterion 
II. A." On the issue of prior notification, the statement was made that 
"major educational decisions of the Board . . . would have been reduced 
to the level of tentative recommendations that could be put into effect 
only after OCR gave its consent." The requirement was now interpreted 
to mean that University of North Carolina officials would notify federal 
officials of changes for their information only and the federal officials 
would have no authority to approve or disapprove those changes. Previ- 
ous commitments of the board on strengthening TBIs, continuing en- 
rollment growth of black and other minority students in graduate and 
professional programs, and enrollment of white students in TBIs were 
reiterated. Generous use was made of Mr. Tatel's letter to Congressman 
Fountain, which was included as an appendix to the document sent 
to HEW. 

On I9january 1978, Vice Presidents Dawson and Thompson met with 
Mr. Tatel in Atlanta to discuss the supplementary statement. To their sur- 
prise, Mr. Tatel handed them a document, Comments on UNC December 
30th Supplementary Statement, that changed the nature and course of the 



The University vs. the Federal Government [223] 

negotiations between the Board of Governors and HEW thereafter. Those 
who represented the university in the negotiations had gained the impres- 
sion that OCR and HEW had been satisfied on all main points of differ- 
ence. Suddenly they were confronted with severe and rigorous demands 
that would require an entirely new plan and ultimately might result in the 
disruption of established academic organizations, processes, and proce- 
dures, some of which had been in place for decades and were widely 
respected. 

The document began by objecting to carefully calculated enrollment 
estimates in the supplementary statement because they did not produce 
the answer demanded by the Criteria. Next the university's conception of 
"good faith effort" was disputed. Then the new element was introduced, 
a requirement to "take specific steps to eliminate educationally unneces- 
sary program duplication among traditionally black and traditionally 
white institutions in the same service area." 

Duplication had been mentioned previously as a problem for some 
community colleges that had two-year programs which duplicated simi- 
lar programs in some TBIs. The procedure for dealing with duplication 
that had been used effectively by the Board of Governors had been de- 
scribed in plans that OCR had in its files. It had been explained that each 
of the constituent institutions had a statewide service area. The response 
was "to identify all degree programs and major fields of study other than 
core curricula, (liberal arts studies) by degree level." The several pages of 
instructions indicated OCR wanted the university to engage in the du- 
bious experiment of closing programs in some institutions in order to 
build up enrollment in others. 

This was OCR's substitute at the level of higher education for pupil 
assignment that had been used at the public-school level. Mr. Tatel prom- 
ised, "in view of the magnitude of the study required," to give the Board 
of Governors until 1 July 1978, if they would commit themselves to im- 
plement the plan. 

On 23 January President Friday wrote to Mr. Tatel that he thought the 
statements dated 5 and 30 December "responded to all the major issues 
we had discussed." He requested Mr. Tatel to submit his Comments for- 
mally since they called for such substantial changes in the state plan. 
President Friday agreed to refer the Comments to the Board of Governors, 
but he would recommend that they "are not acceptable." On 30 January 
he met Mr. Tatel again and learned that HEW Secretary Joseph A. Cali- 
fano, Jr., would hold a press conference on 2 February and "will an- 
nounce his decision regarding our plan." 

President Friday sent all the correspondence with Mr. Tatel to members 
of the Board of Governors and stated that it and Secretary Califano's deci- 



[224] The Multicampus University of North Carolina 

sion would be discussed on 4 February at a meeting of the Committee on 
Planning, Policies and Program. He also expressed his own opinion as 
follows: "As I understand the requirements set out on pages 4-7 of Mr. 
Tatel's comments, we are asked to develop a new plan which would use 
transfers, terminations and reassignment of academic programs as the 
principal means of changing student attendance patterns. The implemen- 
tation of any such plan that could be approved by HEW, within the con- 
text of Mr. Tatel's comments, would impose major changes on all of our 
institutions. Further, such fundamental changes would have been im- 
posed in an effort to accomplish a result that is by no means certain to 
occur." 

On 2 February 1978, Mr. Califano, secretary of the Department of 
Health, Education and Welfare in President Carter's cabinet, announced 
with considerable fanfare his decision to reject the University of North 
Carolina's plan, although he accepted the North Carolina Community 
College Plan, ignoring altogether Mr. Tatel's previous statement that they 
needed to settle their instances of duplication with the TBIs. He stated 
that if no acceptable plan came from the state for the University of North 
Carolina within forty-five days, he would begin administrative proceed- 
ings, and that HEW's grant-making agencies would begin deferring ap- 
proval on a selective basis of applications for funding that would "thwart 
the achievement of desegregation goals." Secretary Califano announced 
acceptance of the Arkansas, Florida, and Oklahoma plans. Virginia and 
Georgia, along with the University of North Carolina, were still judged 
to be deficient. 

On 4 February President Friday reported to the Board of Governors 
concerning events of the month leading up to Secretary Califano's deci- 
sion, and he repeated the points of disagreement that had come to be fa- 
miliar to all by that time, and he added the following new note: 

On January 19 Vice Presidents Dawson and Thompson went to 
Atlanta to meet with Mr. Tatel. At that meeting new and critically 
important definitions of the Criteria's requirements were surfaced by 
OCR as necessary actions to obtain approval of our Plan. Mr. Tatel 
on that occasion — barely two weeks prior to the date on which he 
was required to notify the court of his decision on our plan — inter- 
preted the Criteria pertaining to program duplication as requiring 
that we put in motion a plan for changes in the location of degree 
programs designed solely to induce changes in student attendance 
patterns, that we go back and begin again our long-range planning 
on academic programs, and do so in this very narrow frame of refer- 
ence. It is doubtful, at best, that even far-reaching changes in the as- 
signment of programs would effect the kinds of changes in enroll- 



The University vs. the Federal Government [ 22 5] 

ments that HEW apparently expects or hopes for as a consequence of 
such action. It is clear, in any event, that we were being called upon 
to embark upon what I think would be an educational experiment 
that would seriously disrupt the educational program of The Uni- 
versity of North Carolina, that could inflict long-lasting damage 
upon our institutions, and all on the unproven assumption that it 
might bring about major changes in the racial composition of the stu- 
dent population of our institutions, and especially of our tradition- 
ally black institutions. 

President Friday also regretted what he called the "arbitrary selectivity 
in HEW's activities in the enforcement of Title 6 in higher education." 
Some states that had at one time operated with dejure segregation in their 
public systems of higher education had never been asked to file a plan. 
Some of those who were given clearance — for example, Oklahoma — 
made absurd commitments. Oklahoma promised to set up a training 
program for entrance to the foreign service in a little institution that was 
far weaker than any institution in North Carolina. There were other in- 
consistencies of which Secretary Califano continued to be reminded. For 
example, there were private institutions that had made little effort toward 
desegregation which received large federal grants. 

At the meeting of the Board of Governors on 10 February the Commit- 
tee on Educational Planning, Policies and Program recommended that 
the board appoint outside counsel to assist in protecting the university's 
interests. 

On 22 February Secretary Califano called a press conference at which 
he evidently tried to put the university under so much pressure that it 
would give in to the demands of OCR. As a matter of fact, some time 
before this, President Friday reported that he walked into Secretary Cali- 
fano's office, and an OCR lawyer asked him, "Do you ever wonder why 
The University of North Carolina is under such heavy gunfire?" Presi- 
dent Friday replied, "No, why don't you tell me!" The OCR lawyer said, 
"It's because the Legal Defense Fund figures that if they can break you-all, 
they can break anybody." President Friday replied, "Well, I appreciate 
your candor, we'll see you in the courtroom." 

At the press conference, Secretary Califano, in a jovial and almost boast- 
ful spirit, revealed that OCR had come to terms with all of the institu- 
tions except North Carolina, and he could not understand why, if the 
people in North Carolina read the plans that had been accepted from the 
other five states, they would not fall in line, and finally he stated that: 

These criteria which the five other states have met in their plans 
involve a commitment by the states to increase the number of blacks 
attending traditionally white universities; to promote integration by 



[226] The Multicampus University of North Carolina 

eliminating unnecessary duplication of programs in black and white 
institutions; to expand the number of black faculty members in the 
traditionally white institutions and to expand the number of blacks 
on the boards of the TWIs; and to strengthen the black institutions 
through a number of new resources and new programs so that these 
schools are improved in quality and become more attractive for white 
and black students. 

He failed to explain the limited extent to which some of these institutions 
had made the commitments. Furthermore, he did not mention what was 
well known, that North Carolina had gone further than any other south- 
ern state in providing educational opportunities for blacks and that North 
Carolina had a larger number of predominantly black institutions than 
any state. The press quizzed the secretary intensively on the inconsisten- 
cies of some of the other plans and on who was going to decide on the 
grants to be withheld. 

The notice that was given the University of North Carolina charged 
the institution with not taking "sufficient action as required by law to 
eliminate the effects of the prior dual system" so that vestiges of constitu- 
tional segregation remained. The university had twenty days to reply to 
the notice, but Secretary Califano said that he hoped agreement could be 
reached through further negotiations without the need for administrative 
proceedings. The initial deadline was extended, giving the University of 
North Carolina until I May to file a response. Secretary Califano also said 
that before any complete cutoff of funds, HEW would defer considera- 
tion on applications for new funding in a "carefully targeted and limited 
fashion," withholding approval only to grants deemed likely to contrib- 
ute to segregation. Secretary Califano's notice identified as the main prob- 
lems: black enrollment at TWIs, distribution of black faculty, program 
duplication, and enhancement of TBIs. 

On the same day, President Friday responded, "Our disagreements 
exist because we have refused to commit to take actions that we believe 
are educationally unwise, because we continue to be unwilling to accept 
unreasonable requirements and because we will not agree to any plan that 
takes from the University its responsibility to make educational deci- 
sions." He raised three specific points that were in conflict with HEW: (i) 
The University of North Carolina had five TBIs, making it difficult to 
meet HEW's enrollment goals; (2) HEW did not give North Carolina 
credit for what it had done over the years in such things as library sup- 
port, new buildings, eighteen new degree programs, minority scholar- 
ships, and salary equalization; consequently, the university, he charged, 
was being punished for its past achievements; and (3) the university would 
not surrender its right to determine what was to be taught, where it was 



The University vs. the Federal Government [ 22 7l 

to be taught, and when it was to be taught — in other words, would not 
give OCR jurisdiction over the elimination of program duplication. 

A torrent of press comment followed Secretary Califano's performance. 
Mr. Claude Sitton of the News and Observer commented on 25 March that 
"Joseph A. Califano, Jr., the HEW Secretary, set up the State for the test. 
He first negotiated sweetheart agreements with other states covered by 
the -Adams case. None had a problem as complex as that of North Caro- 
lina ... A past lack of effort in black education has left them with far 
fewer predominantly black institutions." HEW's demand that North 
Carolina's TBIs "must be enhanced while the formerly white institutions 
are increasing their black enrollment presents an inherent contradiction," 
he argued. 

The Charlotte News on 23 March stated in an editorial that "the picture 
the Secretary seeks to create of North Carolina's University System is a 
lie." Even the New York Times stated that "HEW should be wary of cross- 
ing the line between zealous enforcement of equal rights and excessive 
intrusion into state higher education." 

The Washington Star pointed out that "North Carolina, in short, is 
under federal pressure to pursue the contradictory goals of 'integrating' 
higher education while treating the traditionally black institutions as un- 
touchable enclaves." 

University officials and OCR and HEW officials continued to carry on 
negotiations before Secretary Califano's 22 March press conference. After 
that date the pace of negotiations quickened, and the technique changed. 
Legal counsel was employed by the Board of Governors, and Mr. Carl 
Vogt of the legal firm Fulbright and Jaworski began attending conferences 
and studying the case in preparation for possible legal action and to work 
with Mr. Andrew A. Vanore, Jr., of the staff of the North Carolina at- 
torney general. The ad hoc committee of the Board of Governors, com- 
posed of Messrs. Philip G. Carson, T. Worth Coltrane, William A. Dees, 
Jr., John R. Jordan, Jr., and William A. Johnson, participated actively in 
many of the conferences. Vice Presidents Dawson and Joyner and Mr. 
Jeffrey H. Orleans were the representatives for the university, with Presi- 
dent Friday keeping fully informed. Secretary Califano brought the ne- 
gotiations for HEW into his office and was represented by Mr. Richard 
Beattie, his executive assistant. Mr. Tatel did not participate; however, 
Ms. Arlene Mendelson, a member of the legal staff of OCR, usually ac- 
companied Mr. Beattie. On one occasion, U.S. Commissioner of Educa- 
tion Ernest Boyer was involved at a critical juncture. 

The two parties to the negotiations held many joint meetings in Chapel 
Hill prior to 12 May 1978 with the objective of producing an agreement 
that would be acceptable to both HEW and the Board of Governors. Mr. 
Beattie was interested in an agreement that would satisfy the court, and 



[228] The Multicampus University of North Carolina 

university representatives were interested in protecting the integrity of 
the institution and its educational processes. The objectives that motived 
the Criteria and the frame of reference within which it was drafted made it 
difficult to reach agreement. This was compounded by some persons 
who apparently wanted to prevent agreement. 

The negotiations were tedious and time consuming, but a document 
gradually emerged that represented some compromise on both sides. 
Both parties had good reasons to avoid a long, costly, and time-consuming 
legal battle. Secretary Califano had political ambitions that would be 
served better by an agreement than by litigation. President Friday, his as- 
sociates, the legal advisers and all except three or four members of the 
board favored a negotiated settlement. They believed that if litigation 
should be necessary, they would have a stronger case after one more effort 
focused on the educational soundness of their arguments. 

The university was given a notice of opportunity for a hearing, and 
there was an extension of time for an answer until i May. The answer was 
duly filed, and an administrative law judge was to be appointed to hear 
the case. 

At the time the notice was filed, Secretary Califano requested the uni- 
versity to continue negotiations in an effort to reach an agreement. The 
negotiations continued almost without interruption to 12 May, the date 
of the regular commencement meeting of the Board of Governors. It was 
generally conceded that this meeting would determine whether the case 
would go to the administrative court or an accommodation would be 
reached with HEW. The meeting of the board convened at 9:00 a.m. and 
went into executive session immediately with the understanding that it 
would begin a public session at 10:30 a.m. for the purpose of greeting 
retiring faculty members, making the O. Max Gardner Awards, and con- 
ducting the regular business of the board. 

The attorney for the board, Mr. Vogt, and Mr. Vanore from the office 
of the North Carolina attorney general, were present for the meeting. Mr. 
Vogt informed the board of the legal situation, and then Chairman John- 
son called on the president who asked that Vice President Dawson give an 
account of the negotiations since 22 March. He spent about twenty min- 
utes recounting the negotiations that had transpired and clarified the is- 
sues as they had emerged. There was a tense discussion until 10:30 a.m. 
when the board went into its public session. It had been agreed that fol- 
lowing the public session the executive session, to consider the legal 
situation, would resume. 

At 12:30 p.m. the discussions began with a statement from President 
Friday recounting his five telephone conversations with Secretary Cali- 
fano during the last seventy-two hours, all relating to the issue of duplica- 



The University vs. the Federal Government [229] 

tion, which had consumed so many hours of tedious negotiations. He re- 
vealed that on the previous evening at 11:00 p.m., they had reached an 
understanding, which he explained. Before the discussion could be clari- 
fied, Vice President Dawson was called on for another twenty minutes to 
describe what had happened with respect to relations with HEW since 30 
December. It developed that HEW and the university negotiators had 
drafted a document of agreement which had been discussed with the ad 
hoc committee on the previous evening. The agreement between Presi- 
dent Friday and Secretary Califano that was confirmed on the morning of 
12 May completed the document. 

Vice President Dawson was questioned about concessions that had 
been made by the university and those that had been made by HEW. On 
the matter of duplication, Dr. Boyer had stated that the study requested 
by HEW should include all programs, including those in the liberal arts, 
and this had changed their attitude toward the study. In the area of en- 
hancement, there had also been some change, and with respect to the 1 50 
percent requirement, the university had agreed to some detailed report- 
ing. HEW had agreed to a study of duplication rather than immediate 
compliance. They also gave on the "core curriculum" and agreed that it 
should be included in the study of duplication, and he mentioned other 
concessions that had not been made to states that had already reached 
agreements with HEW. Mr. Jordan, a member of the ad hoc committee 
and chairman of the Committee on Planning, Programs and Policies, 
moved that the Board of Governors approve the recommendations which 
had resulted from the negotiations conducted with HEW making it clear 
that the recommendations incorporated the language that President Fri- 
day had submitted to Secretary Califano regarding duplication. 

A written document that contained the negotiated agreement and in- 
cluded Mr. Friday's understanding with Secretary Califano was distrib- 
uted and, from this point on, was the subject of a tense debate. 

The document discussed by the board came to be known as Supple- 
mental Statement II. It included a long statement of what the board had 
already done to enhance the black institutions and pledged to continue its 
efforts. 

It acknowledged as a desirable goal the achievement of parity in the 
proportion of black and white high school graduates enrolling in univer- 
sity institutions but recognized that its attainment was dependent on 
many factors which were beyond the control of the board. However, it 
committed the board to a good faith effort to achieve the goal. 

The document pointed out that the university had already attained the 
goal of proportionality between black and white North Carolina under- 
graduate students who completed their baccalaureate studies in university 



[230] The Multicampus University of North Carolina 

institutions and then entered into graduate or postbaccalaureate programs 
in those institutions, and it indicated that establishing numerical goals for 
black students in each major area of study presented problems because 
the data base that would provide numerical projections was not available. 
However, the board agreed to seek increased participation in the disci- 
pline areas of agriculture and natural resources, architecture and environ- 
mental design, biological sciences, business management, engineering, 
dentistry, medicine, law, and physical sciences. 

The document catalogued what the university was doing to strengthen 
remedial educational programs and agreed to continue efforts toward the 
successful matriculation of undergraduate students. Furthermore, it stated 
as the policy of the University of North Carolina "that race shall not be a 
factor in the academic evaluation of any student or in determining whether 
any student meets graduation requirements." 

It was agreed that any new activities that may be initiated by the uni- 
versity would be included in the initial report to OCR in August 1978. 

It was agreed that by August 1978 each constituent institution and the 
General Administration would adopt a revised affirmative action plan 
showing how commitments mentioned in the document would be 
achieved. 

In the area in which there had been the greatest controversy, the univer- 
sity made the following commitment: 

The Board of Governors is committed to the elimination of educa- 
tionally unnecessary program duplication among traditionally black 
and traditionally white institutions in the same service areas. To meet 
this commitment the Board will conduct a special study of degree 
offerings in institutions that are geographically proximate and will 
implement the findings of the study in a manner consistent with its 
other commitments to strengthen the traditionally black institutions 
and its established policies and guidelines for the definition of in- 
stitutional mission. 

The Board will conduct during the summer and fall of 1978 a spe- 
cial study of degree offerings in traditionally black and traditionally 
white institutions that are geographically proximate. The study will 
be a comprehensive review of the undergraduate curriculum of each 
of six institutions and of their programs at the master's level. The in- 
stitutions included in the study will be Winston-Salem State Univer- 
sity, North Carolina A&T State University, and The University of 
North Carolina at Greensboro; and North Carolina Central Univer- 
sity, North Carolina State University at Raleigh, and The University 
of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. 

This special study will be complemented by a study of degree 



The University vs. the Federal Government [2.3 1 ] 

programs in engineering. Engineering programs are offered at three 
constituent institutions of The University of North Carolina: North 
Carolina A & T State University, North Carolina State University 
at Raleigh, and The University of North Carolina at Charlotte. No 
other institutions are authorized to begin programs in this costly 
field of study, and it is not anticipated that such authorization will be 
given in the foreseeable future. 

During the summer and fall of 1978 a study of existing and pro- 
spective baccalaureate and master's programs in engineering at North 
Carolina A & T State University, North Carolina State University at 
Raleigh, and The University of North Carolina at Charlotte will be 
made to determine if any educationally unnecessary program du- 
plication may now exist and to insure that such duplication is avoided 
in plans currently being developed. 

The special studies will be completed by December 1, 1978, and 
the findings will be incorporated into the 1978 revisions of the long- 
range plan. The studies will be transmitted to the Department when 
completed, together with a statement of actions to be taken by the 
Board in connection with any finding of educationally unnecessary 
program duplication and a racial impact statement for any program 
change contemplated and a schedule for accomplishing such changes. 
These actions would commence in the academic year 1979-80, would 
be completed by 1982-83, and the Board of Governors is committed 
to take appropriate actions that will, when combined with the other 
programs and steps described elsewhere in this Plan, be intended to 
result by the academic year 1982-83 in the enrollment of a significant 
proportion of students in unduplicated programs in traditionally 
white institutions and traditionally black institutions. 

The controversy had revolved around enrollment in "unduplicated pro- 
grams." Secretary Califano had wanted the end of the last sentence in the 
above quotation to read, "in the enrollment of a significant proportion of 
black students in unduplicated programs." With five traditionally black 
institutions and with thousands of black students enrolled in the eleven 
predominantly white institutions, the achievement of this objective would 
have been impossible. Determining a "significant proportion" would have 
led to endless arguing with OCR. The burden of statistical reporting to 
prove whether each black student was in an "unduplicated program" 
would have been fantastic and the contribution of this objective to the 
further elimination of racial duality was questionable. President Friday's 
suggestion that it read "in the enrollment of a significant proportion of 
students in unduplicated programs in traditionally white institutions and 
traditionally black institutions" was a fortunate solution to what had 



[232] The Multicampus University of North Carolina 

come to be an impossible roadblock. It enabled Secretary Califano to ex- 
tricate himself from some of the more zealous officials in OCR. 

The discussion of the document continued for several hours. A recess 
of thirty minutes was declared at one time to give the members time to 
read the document. Since it had not been distributed in advance, it had 
been necessary to seek the consent of two-thirds of those present to con- 
sider it. Chairman Johnson revealed that he had changed his mind since 
the previous evening and believed that the agreement gave the federal 
government too much control over the university's future. He was joined 
in his opposition to the agreement by Mr. Laurence A. Cobb and Mr. 
Jacob H. Froelich, Jr. The agreement was defended by Mr. Dees, Mr. Jor- 
dan, and Mr. Carson, who were members of the ad hoc committee, and 
by the fourth member of the committee, Mr. Coltrane, who was not 
present for the full debate. President Friday, Mr. Vogt, and Mr. Vanore 
supported the agreement. When they finally voted, President Friday had 
Secretary Califano on the telephone to confirm his agreement. The state- 
ment was adopted on a roll call vote by 1 9-3 . After the vote was repeated in 
the public session of the board, it adjourned immediately. In his discus- 
sions with newspaper reporters, Chairman Johnson let it be known that he 
was displeased with the action of his colleagues in approving the statement. 

Secretary Califano made a statement shortly thereafter that HEW would 
now accept the University of North Carolina plan and would drop ad- 
ministrative proceedings and the threat of withholding funds, contingent 
upon UNC's completion of the duplication study by December 1978. On 
12 June Mr. David Tatel wrote OCR's official letter of provisional accep- 
tance of the university's plan which now consisted of four documents: the 
22 August 1977 Phase II Plan; the 5 December 1977 Comments; the 30 De- 
cember 1977 Supplemental Statement; and the 12 May 1978 Supplemental 
Statement II. 

Between June and December of 1978 there was comparative peace 
between the university and HEW. The university spent a considerable 
amount of time on the study of program duplication that it had promised 
as the price for the provisional acceptance of its four-part plan extending 
over the period August 1977-May 1978. The study, entitled, "Com- 
parative Study of Baccalaureate and Master's Program Offerings," was 
adopted by the Board of Governors on 8 December. It was based on a 
detailed analysis of duplication among two groups of institutions: those 
centered in the Greensboro- Winston-Salem area (North Carolina Agri- 
cultural and Technical State University, the University of North Carolina 
at Greensboro, and Winston-Salem State University); and those in the 
Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill area (North Carolina Central University, 
North Carolina State University at Raleigh, and the University of North 
Carolina at Chapel Hill). 



The University vs. the Federal Government [233] 

This special study was made in the context of the assigned educational 
mission and academic program plan of each of the institutions, as set 
forth in the Board of Governors' long-range plan for the University of 
North Carolina. Both this study and the study of degree programs in en- 
gineering were adopted by the board as part of that plan. 

The study focused on duplication both in the area of the arts and 
sciences and in programs with a professional orientation. There were 
fifty-eight duplicative programs found in the study; however, the ma- 
jor conclusion was: "that there is no educationally unnecessary pro- 
gram duplication within either of the two groups of institutions. This is 
not a finding based only upon this particular study; it is based on and 
grows out of policy and program decisions developed over the years by 
the Board of Governors in its Long Range Plan, in special educational 
planning studies done in important subject areas, and in its efforts to 
strengthen each of the five formerly black constituent institutions." 

This was a logical conclusion based on the statewide mission of the sev- 
eral institutions. Mr. Tatel, with his customary zeal, sent President Friday 
the response of OCR on 18 January 1979. In the OCR staff analysis of the 
university study, he found evidence (to his satisfaction) for rejecting the 
conclusion "that none of the programs could be eliminated." He main- 
tained that the university's duplication study "shows extensive duplica- 
tion in non-core degree programs among the following sets of TBIs and 
TWIs: (1) twenty-one duplicative programs between UNC-G and N.C. 
A & T; eight between UNC-G and WSSU; (2) fifteen between NCCU 
and UNC-Chapel Hill; nine between NCCU and NCSU." It was evident 
that those who made the analysis had little knowledge of higher educa- 
tion in either North Carolina or the nation at large. 

Mr. Tatel then proceeded to rebut the university's argument that all of 
these were cases of necessary duplication and came to this conclusion: 

While the study identifies extensive duplication among non-core 
degree programs, particularly at the undergraduate level, no pro- 
posals to eliminate any of this duplication are presented; thus, the 
study does not satisfy UNC's commitment to ensure "enrollment of a 
significant proportion of students in unduplicated programs." It 
should be noted that this commitment does not require the elimina- 
tion of all educationally unnecessary program duplication. Rather, it 
can be satisfied through a combination of the elimination of some 
programs at some institutions and the addition of new, unduplicated 
programs at the TBIs. Also, the elimination of program duplication 
does not necessarily require that major programs be closed or trans- 
ferred; rather, under certain circumstances, it can be accomplished 
through program specialization. 



[234] The Multicampus University oj North Carolina 

An engineering duplication study was also filed with OCR. It was dis- 
cussed by Mr. Tatel in his evaluation of the duplication study with similar 
arguments. In addition, Mr. Tatel found fault with the Carnegie classifi- 
cation of institutions and charged that there was duplication among in- 
stitutions in the same classification range. He wanted more information 
about new programs that had been mentioned in the 15 August report for 
allocation to the TBIs. He intimated that the physical plant and mainte- 
nance study of the TBIs that had been filed with OCR did not compare 
TBIs and TWIs and did not indicate the action that the university pro- 
posed to meet the problems identified in the study. He had certain minor 
criticisms of the procedure for submitting enrollment data. As a matter of 
fact, Mr. Tatel took the occasion to range among reports that had been 
submitted to OCR over the previous six months and to find items about 
which to complain. By this time the OCR counterattack was rapidly ap- 
proaching the level of absurdity. He had the temerity to ask President Fri- 
day whether the staff paper was acceptable as a basis for discussion. 

President Friday's response on 25 January to the 18 January communica- 
tion from Mr. Tatel insisted that Mr. Tatel's paper was not "acceptable as a 
basis for discussion." Eight reports had been sent to OCR since 15 Au- 
gust 1978, and this was the first reply he had received, Mr. Tatel was in- 
formed. The letter, President Friday said, "was contrary to the statutory 
obligations of the Department to assist us in realizing 'voluntary com- 
pliance.'" The tentative evaluation on which Mr. Tatel's paper was based, 
President Friday insisted, "does not offer a basis for discussion since it 
declines to acknowledge the validity of the Plan accepted on May 12, 
1978, or the fact that The University of North Carolina is making sub- 
stantial progress in meeting its commitments." For these and other rea- 
sons, he returned the OCR staff paper with his response. 

Secretary Califano announced unofficially on 9 February 1979 that, be- 
cause of the university's refusal to eliminate program duplication, its plan 
was now unacceptable. The same day in a special session of the Board of 
Governors, the special committee for the employment of legal counsel 
was reappointed. 

Meanwhile, OCR appeared to shift its attack from program duplica- 
tion to another issue, the enhancement of TBIs. An example of this new 
interest was the HEW on-site inspection of eight of the constituent in- 
stitutions of the university during February. Mr. Tatel, accompanied by 
Assistant Secretary of HEW Ms. Mary Berry and enough followers to 
make it an impressive entourage, attracted a lot of newspaper publicity as 
they went from campus to campus spending little time and doing a lot of 
commenting. It was Mr. Tatel's opinion that "the institutions are clearly 
unequal ... I guess we were surprised at the degree of underfinancing we 



The University vs. the Federal Government [ 2 35] 

found." Assistant Secretary Berry alleged that "somebody in the State 
has not understood or hasn't cared — I don't know which — how bad things 
were in these schools to begin with when they started infusing this money. 
Whatever efforts were made were not anywhere near what would be 
needed if one was serious about doing anything about it." 

As a result of the Tatel-Berry inspections, there were many compari- 
sons made between the TWIs and the TBIs. For example, the number of 
autoclaves (a sterilization device used in laboratories) was noted for each 
type of institution by Assistant Secretary Berry, leading one writer to 
state, "The Government sleuths reported their tallies to the New York 
Times, whose readers were left to conclude that all whites are born with 
autoclaves, yet everywhere blacks are still in chains." 

The Tatel-Berry tour inspired Senator Jesse Helms to introduce into the 
U.S. Senate an Academic Freedom Act on i March 1979. The act would 
have prohibited any federal agency from making regulations that might 
lower the academic standards of any institutions or discontinue any aca- 
demic programs. There is no record that his bill made any serious head- 
way in the Senate. 

Negotiations with OCR continued, and at a meeting on 2 March be- 
tween representatives of the university and OCR officials, it was sug- 
gested that the Phase II Plan be accepted for a five-year trial period after 
which federal officials could evaluate the university's progress. OCR re- 
sponded on 8 March with a list of seven programs that could be termi- 
nated or transferred and that would presumably lead to OCR's acceptance 
of the plan. President Friday rejected this on 12 March, noting that the 
proposed capital improvements and program development for the TBIs 
that would be necessary exceeded the university's financial capabilities by 
more than $100 million. On 13 March President Friday promised over 
$21 million for improvement of the TBIs. Mr. Tatel countered that this 
amount was insufficient. President Friday ended this meeting supposedly 
by vowing to fight HEW with "all resources" if the university's plan were 
rejected. On 16 March the Board of Governors employed the legal firm of 
Charles Morgan, Jr., of Washington, D.C. Mr. Morgan was a noted civil 
rights attorney. 

Mr. Tatel formally rejected the plan of the University of North Caro- 
lina on 26 March. On 29 March the first steps were taken to defer univer- 
sity funds; a motion was filed stating that aid from twelve agencies would 
be ended in thirty days if an acceptable plan were not submitted. Early in 
April the Adams plaintiffs petitioned for the immediate termination of 
funds. Judge Pratt denied their motion. 

President Friday reported to the Board of Governors on 20 April, de- 
scribing the strenuous efforts that had been made to reach a settlement. 



[236] The Multicampus University of North Carolina 

On 2 April he had received notification by registered mail that adminis- 
trative proceedings against the university were to begin. He reported that 
Secretary Califano had called Governor Hunt at home on Saturday, 14 
April, and requested that his executive assistant, Mr. Richard Beattie, 
meet with the governor at the mansion on Easter Monday. The governor 
agreed and called President Friday. Some key documents that the gover- 
nor needed were collected and sent to him prior to the meeting. Mr. 
Beattie had informed the governor that what the university had proposed 
for the enhancement of traditionally black institutions was not enough. 
He also emphasized the department's continuing difference with the uni- 
versity on the central issue of program duplication. 

On Tuesday, 17 April, Chairman Johnson, Vice Presidents Dawson, 
Joyner, and Thompson, and President Friday met with Governor Hunt. 
The governor said that Mr. Beattie had offered to come back and meet 
with university officials, and the governor described the kind of support 
he was prepared to seek to enable the university to achieve a settlement 
that was fair and that preserved the integrity of the university. The next 
day they met with Mr. Beattie and Mr. Tatel in the General Administra- 
tion Building and were joined by the governor. President Friday stated 
that the representation made to the HEW officials on behalf of the univer- 
sity and the state was to the "everlasting credit" of both. Governor Hunt 
offered to ask the General Assembly and the citizens of the state to forego 
a $40 million tax relief proposal and to appropriate $40 million to the 
Board of Governors to be used for a $20 million renovation program 
among the TBIs and to provide an additional $20 million for other new 
capital improvements to those institutions. Combined with the $30 mil- 
lion in capital projects underway, this would give the TBIs a total of $70 
million for capital improvements enhancement. President Friday told 
them: "We are prepared to commit that, at the conclusion of the life of 
our Plan, in 1982-83, the Board would conduct a study of the effects of 
all that we had done and that, if such a study did not reveal significant 
achievement in the elimination of a racially-dual system, the Board would 
determine what further measures shall be taken to encourage and pro- 
mote the further integration of all University institutions." 

President Friday and some of his associates went to Washington on 19 
April and talked with Mr. Beattie, Mr. Tatel, and Secretary Califano, but 
they were still unable to bring home an agreement. 

On 20 April, when President Friday gave his report, Mr. Charles Mor- 
gan, who had been retained by the state to represent the university, re- 
viewed recent developments and suggested to the board that it consider 
authorizing the filing of a suit in the federal district court in North Caro- 
lina. Drafts of a proposed complaint and brief for use in such a suit were 
distributed to the members. 



The University vs. the Federal Government [ 2 37] 

Mr. Richard H. Robinson reviewed for the board offers that had been 
made earlier in the week by Governor Hunt and President Friday to HEW 
concerning the proposed $40 million in additional funds for the TBIs to 
be spent over a four- to five-year period. A 15-page document was dis- 
tributed giving the ways in which this money would be spent and propos- 
ing additional actions that would be taken to strengthen the TBIs. It was 
moved that the board instruct its counsel "to take to the Secretary of 
HEW the 15-page document together with statements giving the Board's 
position on program duplication and explaining that the Board's action 
was contingent upon funding by the General Assembly." Following a 
substitute motion and considerable discussion, a motion was passed au- 
thorizing Mr. Charles Morgan, Jr., and the attorney general of North 
Carolina to file suit on or after 23 April 1979, and "after consultation 
with and authorization by the Chairman of the Board" to engage in 
settlement negotiations with HEW. Counsel was instructed not to nego- 
tiate regarding any language which might in any way impinge upon the 
precepts expressed in the following: "Under no circumstances does the 
University acknowledge that the Department or any other political au- 
thority has the right to dictate, guide, or evaluate curricula, programs, or 
program content or the geographic-institutional location of program or 
course offerings, it being the position of the University that such deci- 
sions are reserved to it by the First Amendment of the Constitution of the 
United States." 

Counsel was also instructed not to accept the Criteria either expressly 
or implicitly. The motion, which in effect deferred the filing of the suit 
until after 23 April, authorized further negotiations with officials of HEW 
on the basis of the $40 million proposal, and was approved, but it was 
evident that most members of the board had lost confidence in Secretary 
Califano and OCR and were ready to take the matter to the U.S. District 
Court. 

Secretary Califano immediately expressed regret for the board's action, 
and asserted that the cutoff of funds would begin on 2 May. 

On 24 April 1979, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of 
North Carolina, attorneys for the state filed suit to block the cutoff of 
federal funds. On 26 April Judge Franklin Dupree signed a temporary 
restraining order against HEW forbidding the deferring of funds pending 
a hearing on the matter. This order was twice extended to 1 1 June. The 
restraining order was against the Department of Health, Education and 
Welfare, Joseph A. Califano, Jr., and the principal officials connected 
with OCR and the various departments of the United States government 
that administered funds that were granted to constituent institutions of 
the University of North Carolina. It sought declaratory and injunctive re- 
lief and sought to prohibit the department: "from cutting off Federal 



[238] The Multicampus University of North Carolina 

funds and from dictating program content or requiring program shifting 
in violation of the First Amendment rights of the University and its stu- 
dents and faculty to academic freedom; to declare unconstitutional the 
existing de jure criteria the existence and application of which deprive 
North Carolina of its right of constitutional equality." 

The Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief listed some sixteen 
individuals and federal departments as defendants. It included seventy- 
two statements of what were termed "facts," and it mentioned a number 
of causes of action beginning with "the defendants' termination of or re- 
fusal to grant or to continue assistance, on the threat of such termination 
or refusal for various programs and activities." 

It closed with a request that the court grant the following relief: (1) "an 
order declaring that defendants' enforcement of Title VI, the Amended De 
Jure Criteria, and the Revised De Jure Criteria deprives the State of North 
Carolina of constitutional equality guaranteed all states of the United 
States . . ."; (2) "an order declaring that The University of North Caro- 
lina is in compliance with Title VI"; (3) an order prohibiting the use of 
the formerly de jure status of the state of North Carolina "in determining 
whether or not the University is in compliance with Title VI"; (4) an in- 
junction prohibiting defendants from applying the Criteria to the plain- 
tiffs and from otherwise enforcing Title 6 until the court has had an op- 
portunity to determine whether the university is in compliance with Title 
6 and that defendants' attempt to shift programs from institution to in- 
stitution is beyond their statutory and constitutional authority; (5) relief 
from the failure of the defendants to publish a notice of proposed rule- 
making in the federal register; (6) an order declaring the defendants' fail- 
ure to consider the uniqueness of higher education in a number of re- 
spects in determining compliance with Title 6 as arbitrary and capricious; 
(7) an order declaring the defendants' use of "numerical goals and time- 
tables" as "indices by which to measure progress toward the objective of 
eliminating the effects of unconstitutional dejure segregation" is arbitrary 
and capricious and violates the due process clause of the Fifth Amend- 
ment of the Constitution; and (8) "an order declaring that defendants' in- 
sistence on racial balance in the university's constituent institutions, its re- 
quirements that the university consent to the elimination or shifting of 
allegedly educationally unnecessary duplication programs, and its at- 
tempts to exert control over the university's curriculum violates 20 U.S.C. 
Section 1232a" (Prohibition against federal control of education). 

In their arguments against the restraining order, federal officials stated 
that the University of North Carolina would not be permanently hurt by 
a cutoff of funds and even if it should be hurt, that was better than federal 
support for segregation. They maintained that no tenets of academic free- 



The University vs. the Federal Government [239] 

dom were being violated by program elimination; that HEW's actions 
had been national in scope and, hence, the University of North Carolina 
had not been subject to arbitrary enforcement; and they denied that 
HEW had failed to provide clear guidelines. 

The federal government requested that the lawsuit be transferred to 
Judge Pratt's jurisdiction in Washington, D.C. on 1 May. At the end of 
May, Judge Dupree denied the government request. On 8 June Judge Du- 
pree ruled that the federal government could not withhold grants from 
the state until after the administrative hearing procedure. Following those 
hearings, he stated that he would decide on the state's assertion that the 
government's desegregation campaign against the university was uncon- 
stitutional. At the end of his statement, he noted that a negotiated settle- 
ment was preferable to a drawn-out suit. He remarked that "the Court 
genuinely hopes these grave historical and political questions can be 
resolved amicably by leaders of good faith and purpose." The good faith 
of the university and the state was indicated by the passage in the Gen- 
eral Assembly of the $40 million enhancement appropriation that Presi- 
dent Friday had proposed on 25 April after negotiations apparently were 
deadlocked. 

HEW announced on 18 June that Judge Lewis F. Parker had been se- 
lected as the federal administrative law judge who would preside over the 
University of North Carolina case, and the hearing was set to begin on 7 
January 1980. Delays forced the moving of the hearing still further to July. 
After less than two months into the case, Judge Parker disqualified him- 
self because his daughter had just applied for admission to the University 
of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Judge John Mathias was assigned to 
continue the case, which lasted for almost a year. Nearly 15,000 pages of 
testimony were taken and over 500 exhibits were assembled. A number of 
eminent educators testified that the demands of OCR in enforcing its 
Criteria were educationally unsound. 

In May 1980 HEW was divided into two departments by congress on 
President Carter's recommendation — the Department of Health and Hu- 
man Services and the Department of Education. Judge Shirley Hufstedler 
was named secretary of the Department of Education, and the University 
of North Carolina case came within her aegis. With the beginning of the 
administration of President Ronald Reagan in 1981, Dr. Terrell Bell of 
Utah replaced Secretary Hufstedler in the Department of Education. Sec- 
retary Bell, who was a person of substantial experience in the field of 
higher education, began negotiations for a consent decree about a month 
after assuming office. 

On 20 June 1981 the Board of Governors in executive session consid- 
ered a proposed consent decree that would be submitted to the judge of 



[240] The Multicampus University of North Carolina 

the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. Mr. 
William A. Dees, Jr., moved "that the board authorize University coun- 
sel to join with counsel for the Federal Government to file" a proposed 
consent decree. Vice President Dawson and Mr. Levin, counsel for the 
university, explained various aspects of the proposed decree. Following 
extensive discussion, Mr. Dees' motion was adopted unanimously and 
the vote was repeated in the public session. The consent decree was ap- 
proved by Judge Dupree on 17 July. It set enrollment goals rather than 
fixed quotas; it called for improvement in the TBIs by adding twenty- 
nine graduate and undergraduate programs; it continued development of 
graduate centers in Fayetteville and Elizabeth City; and provided for a 
new graduate center in Winston-Salem. Equitable financial support for 
the TBIs, continued efforts to integrate staff and faculty, and the assur- 
ance of equitable salaries were pledged. There was a commitment to en- 
sure expansion of educational opportunities for minority students. There 
was agreement to attempt to raise black student enrollment at TWIs to 
10.6 percent by 1986-87 and white enrollment at TBIs to 15 percent. 
When the decree expires on 31 December 1986 the court will retain con- 
trol of the case until 31 December 1988. Secretary Bell, in announcing the 
agreement, emphasized that "the State will control the destiny of its dis- 
tinguished and respected University." 

The NAACP's Legal Defense Fund promptly tried to restrain Secretary 
Bell from entering into the decree and have the case returned to Judge 
Pratt. The action was brought before Judge Pratt in the District of Co- 
lumbia Federal District Court, but he ruled that he now lacked jurisdic- 
tion in the case. The Legal Defense Fund then appealed to the District of 
Columbia Federal Circuit Court. In January 1982 a three-judge panel 
heard the Legal Defense Fund's appeal and ruled in August by a vote of 
2-1 that "the day has not yet come when courts of one circuit should 
issue declaratory judgments involving actions taken by courts of another 
circuit." 

On 14 October 1982 one of the attorneys for the Legal Defense Fund, 
Mr. Elliott Lichtman, presented a second appeal to the Circuit Court 
which was heard en banc with all of the justices present. The appeal was 
again denied by a vote of 6-4; however, the opinion was not released until 
10 June 1983. The Legal Defense Fund then appealed to the U.S. Su- 
preme Court. On 21 February 1984 the court refused without comment 
to hear the case; thus, after fourteen years, the Legal Defense Fund had 
exhausted its legal resources for further confrontation with the Univer- 
sity of North Carolina via the Office for Civil Rights. 

The university had been forced to spend more than $2, 184,000 on legal 
fees and, in addition, it is impossible to calculate the value of time spent 
by the Board of Governors and the General Administration staff to pro- 



The University vs. the Federal Government [ 2 4-i] 

tect the institution from action on the part of the federal government, 
which threatened its freedom to conduct its affairs under the same consti- 
tutional principles as were permitted most of the other states in the Union. 
The memory of de jure segregation which had been abolished in 1957 was 
used to drag the university and the state of North Carolina through the 
long and dreary proceedings begun in 1970. 

In the consent decree, the University of North Carolina made the fol- 
lowing commitment: 

Through December 1986, the University shall file each December, 
beginning in December 1981, annual reports with the Court, with 
copies to counsel for the Government and the Assistant Secretary for 
Civil Rights of the Department of Education, setting out (1) the ac- 
tions taken by the University and its constituent institutions in ac- 
cordance with the commitments set forth in Section VI of this De- 
cree; (2) the minority presence enrollments at the predominantly 
white and predominantly black institutions for each year beginning 
in 1981-82; (3) the current operations and capital improvements 
budgets for each comprehensive and general baccalaureate constitu- 
ent institution as approved by the Board [of Governors] for each 
fiscal year beginning with 1981-82; and (4) the implementation of 
the institutional development plans for each of the predominantly 
black institutions as set forth in Section VII. 

The university rendered to the court and the federal government five 
elaborate reports through December 1985 responding in detail to each of 
the four areas covered in the commitment. For example, the university 
designed and carried through on a program to inform black students in 
schools, community colleges, and senior colleges of the opportunities 
available to them on the sixteen constituent campuses. It reported regu- 
larly on minority presence enrollment at both predominantly white and 
predominantly black institutions. By 1985 in the aggregate the university 
had slightly exceeded the 15 percent for enrollment of whites in the pre- 
dominantly black institutions but was still short by 2 percent of the 
10.6-percent goal for enrollment of black students in predominantly 
white institutions. It was making a determined effort to reach its enroll- 
ment goals in spite of unfavorable demographic trends. The reports also 
showed that, for both current operations and capital improvements, the 
predominantly black institutions were treated as well or better than 
the predominantly white institutions and had come a long way under the 
Board of Governors. Finally, the university was on schedule in implement- 
ing plans for developing and enhancing each of the five predominantly 
black institutions. 

Both parties to this monumental controversy appeared willing to abide 



[242] The Multicampus University of North Carolina 

by the following wise advice given to them by Judge Dupree when they 
first appeared before him in the summer of 1979: "The protagonists in 
this drama do not wear black and white hats; instead they are men of con- 
science struggling to preserve, alter, modernize and improve a great edu- 
cational institution. In the balance rests our children's future. The court 
genuinely hopes these grave historical and political questions can be re- 
solved amicably by leaders of good faith and purpose." 

The following editorial in the Asheville Citizen of 24 June 1981 ex- 
pressed the opinion that was echoed throughout the state: "The desegre- 
gation settlement reached by the University of North Carolina and the 
federal government is the best news in years concerning the state's rela- 
tions with Washington . . . This state can now get on with educating 
young people rather than playing games with federal bureaucrats. . . . 
The federal courts should approve this plan, for, like all good compro- 
mises, it serves well all parties in the dispute." 



CHAPTER 13 

The Standing Committees of 
the Board of Governors 



The Board of Governors shall plan and develop 

a coordinated system of higher education in North 

Carolina. To this end, it shall govern the sixteen 

constituent institutions. 

— G.s.116-11 

To carry out this general directive in G.S.116-11, the Board of Gover- 
nors is given extensive powers over the programs, personnel, and budgets 
of the university. Anticipating that the board would need an organization 
for meeting its responsibilities, it was also given the power "to appoint 
from its own number committees which shall be clothed with such pow- 
ers as the Board of Governors may confer." 

For sixteen months the Board of Governors had no regular standing 
committees. Three ad hoc committees were named by Governor Scott to 
oversee budget requests, personnel matters, and long-range planning. 
Mr. J. P. Huskins was chairman of budget, Mr. Maceo A. Sloan of per- 
sonnel and Dr. Hugh S. Daniel, Jr., of long-range planning. On 14 
September 1973, chapter 3 of the Code was adopted. It called for four 
standing committees to deal with matters in the area of budget, person- 
nel, planning, and governance. At this same meeting, a nominating com- 
mittee was set up to recommend the membership of the committees with 
Mr. Jacob H. Froelich, Jr., as chairman. He reported the recommenda- 
tions of the nominating committee to the board on 22 October. Since 
that time a significant body of practices and procedures has developed 
around the activities of these four standing committees. 

The history of the board's activities after that date revolves largely 
around the work of these committees. Since 1972 the headcount enroll- 
ment of the sixteen constituent institutions has increased from 87,631 to 
125,274 in the fall of 1985. The state appropriated funds for current opera- 
tions increased from $186,624,286 in 1971-72 to $838,500,000 in 1985- 

[M3] 



[244] The Multicampus University oj North Carolina 

86. In the latter year the total expenditures of the University of North 
Carolina from all sources was estimated to be $1,472,000,000. During the 
period 1973 through 1986, capital improvements funds available to the 
university amounted to $965,135,287. Of this amount, $250,000,000 
came from the issuance of "self-liquidating" (revenue) bonds and other 
non-state sources. 

The total number of university employees paid from state-controlled 
funds increased from approximately 18,000 in 1971-72 to over 28,000 as 
of 1 July 1985. 

The enormous growth in responsibilities of the Board of Governors 
during these years resulted in a corresponding increase in the responsibili- 
ties and activities of each of the four standing committees. 



COMMITTEE ON BUDGET AND FINANCE 

The duties and responsibilities of the Committee on Budget and Finance 
are described in Section 301-B of the Code as follows: 

The Committee on Budget and Finance shall consist of the Vice 
Chairman of the Board of Governors and six elected members. The 
Committee shall advise and consult with the President concerning 
budget policy and preparation. The Committee shall consider the 
budget proposed by the President and, upon its approval, shall sub- 
mit the budget to the Board of Governors for final action. The 
Committee shall make recommendations to the Board for the alloca- 
tion of funds appropriated to the Board. It shall also advise and assist 
the President, and submit recommendations to the Board, with re- 
spect to real property transactions, investments, endowments and 
other fiscal and property matters within the jurisdiction of the Board 
of Governors. 

Perhaps the committee's most important function has to do with advis- 
ing and consulting with the president about budgetary policy, preparing 
the budget, and recommending to the Board of Governors a proposed 
budget for their action. The Board of Governors is required in accordance 
with G.S.n6-n(9)a to "prepare and present to the Assembly a single 
unified recommended budget for all of public senior higher education." 
Before 1972 each institutional board of trustees had submitted a separate 
uncoordinated budget. One of the reasons for bringing all the institutions 
under the Board of Governors was to introduce order into the budgetary 
process. The board is required to submit budget requests in three general 
categories. 



The Standing Committees of the Board of Governors [ 2 45] 

The first of these includes "funds for the continuing operation of each 
constituent institution." This section of the budget is based on what the 
institution is currently receiving and is appropriated directly to the in- 
stitution; however, in the preparation of the budget, it must be submitted 
by the chancellors of the institutions to the president and is carefully ex- 
amined by him and the committee before it is included in the budget. 

The second part of the budget relates to funds requested for salary in- 
creases for all employees who are exempt from the State Personnel Act. 
The president, beginning with conferences with the chancellors and with 
the vice presidents, makes a recommendation to the Budget Committee, 
which has been arrived at frequently after consultation with represen- 
tatives of other groups of state employees such as the public school per- 
sonnel and those of the various departments. The funds are appropriated 
in a lump sum as stipulated in G.S. n6-n(9)b. Funds for salary increases 
are allocated to the constituent institutions by the Board of Governors 
after receiving the advice of the president through the committee. 

The funds in the third category are also requested in a lump sum. The 
requests which are itemized and arranged according to priority cover the 
following areas: "New programs and activities, expansion of programs 
and activities, increase in enrollment, increases to accommodate internal 
shifts and categories of persons served, capital improvements, improve- 
ments in levels of operation and increase to remedy deficiencies, as well as 
other areas." 

In practice, the requests have placed capital improvements in a separate 
classification arranged according to a schedule of priorities and all of the 
other requests in another classification arranged according to a schedule 
of priorities. Customarily, in the capital improvements priorities, the re- 
quests are identified by institution and the priority for each institution is 
indicated. In the other category, which is for the enrichment of the in- 
stitutions, the first priority has usually been for increases in enrollment. 
Other priorities are indicated and in the funds appropriated, the General 
Assembly may decrease the amount requested for an item, and it may 
even lump a number of items together and appropriate a sum less than the 
total of all items. It has been up to the board to allocate funds in accor- 
dance with the areas of most pressing need in the several institutions. 

In some instances the Board of Governors has had no discretion where 
funds have been specifically allocated in the appropriation act by the Gen- 
eral Assembly for such projects as the building and operation of the East 
Carolina medical school or the School of Veterinary Medicine at North 
Carolina State University. The same is true for buildings that were allo- 
cated by the General Assembly to particular institutions. This problem of 
designated appropriations caused some expressions of discontent among 



[246] The Multicampus University oj North Carolina 

members of the Board of Governors in 1983, and there was discussion of 
protesting the practice to the political leadership in the General Assem- 
bly; however, resort to this course of action did not occur. 

The board had presented by 1983 eight "single unified recommended 
budgets" to the General Assembly. It had evolved an effective procedure 
for developing, analyzing, transmitting, and explaining the budget to the 
governor, the Advisory Budget Commission, and the General Assembly. 
During this period the chairmen of the Budget Committee were Mr. 
W. Earl Britt, 1973-75; Mr. Hugh Cannon, 1975-78; Mr. T. Worth Col- 
trane, 1978; Mr. James E. Holmes, 1978-82; and Mr. William A. Dees, 
Jr., 1982-. The staff officer for the committee since the beginning has 
been Mr. L. Felix Joyner, vice president for finance. 

The committee has been confronted with many problems other than 
the technical preparation and presentation of the budget. Probably the 
most important work in connection with obtaining appropriations for 
the university goes on after the legislature actually begins the considera- 
tion of the appropriation bill. Since 1973 Mr. R. D. McMillan, Jr., as- 
sistant to the president for legislative affairs, has been a key figure in the 
success of the university in receiving the generous support it has enjoyed 
from the state. In accordance with the Executive Budget Act, all state 
agencies are required to make a budget request in the format and by a 
schedule established by the governor, who is director of the budget. The 
governor then consults the Advisory Budget Commission, which is re- 
sponsible for reviewing the budget before it is presented to the legis- 
lature. At the appropriate time, the governor makes his recommendation 
to the legislature on the requests from all of the state agencies. At this 
point the legislature takes over and the appropriations committees de- 
velop over a period of months an appropriations bill for all state institu- 
tions. In this process, the recommendations of the governor frequently 
undergo many changes. The funds appropriated for an agency may be 
used only for the purposes given when the money is requested or as the 
requests may be amended by the General Assembly. 

When the university is notified of its appropriation, the process of al- 
locations of those funds received in a lump sum by the Board of Gover- 
nors begins. In any cases that require deviation from the purposes for 
which the funds were appropriated, approval must be received from the 
Advisory Budget Commission and the governor. Between 1 July 1972 
and 30 June 1985 cumulative expenditures for current operations sup- 
ported by state appropriations for the University of North Carolina and 
its constituent institutions amounted to approximately $5,595,000,000. 
Only about half of the current operations expenditure of the university 
has come from state appropriations. The other has come from receipts 



The Standing Committees of the Board of Governors [ 2 47] 

from auxiliary enterprises; federal appropriations, contracts and grants; 
hospital receipts; tuition and fees; educational activities receipts; other 
contracts and grants, gifts and endowments; independent operations re- 
ceipts; and other sources. Cumulative expenditures for current operations 
supported by state appropriations and all other institutional receipts for 
the University of North Carolina and its constituent institutions, begin- 
ning i July 1972 and ending 30 June 1985, amounted to approximately 
$11,297,000,000. Over the period from 1973 to 1986, as was mentioned 
above, the total funds available to the Board of Governors for capital im- 
provements amounted to $965,135,287. 

The Committee on Budget and Finance has been responsible for mak- 
ing recommendations to the Board of Governors concerning the tremen- 
dous financial expenditures summarized in the figures mentioned above. 

The Board of Governors is responsible for fixing tuition rates and all 
fees for the sixteen constituent institutions. Frequently, the General As- 
sembly, in its appropriation act for the university, has anticipated that tui- 
tion would have to be increased in order to make up the full amount ap- 
propriated, and the board has acted accordingly. When the Board of 
Governors assumed responsibility for the sixteen constituent institutions 
on 1 July 1972, the tuition and fees varied widely among the institutions. 
The Board of Governors began in its budget requests for 1973-75 to 
bring tuition and fees for similar institutions into some semblance of 
order. A three-year plan for equalizing in-state tuition was recommended 
by the committee and adopted by the board. Since then, the board has 
maintained identical tuition rates among the categories of institutions. 
Tuition charges at each institution for undergraduate, graduate, and pro- 
fessional students have been at the same rate, with some exceptions in the 
health sciences. Fortunately, the university has been able to convince the 
General Assembly to follow the mandate in Article IX, Section 9, of the 
North Carolina State Constitution which reads as follows: "The General 
Assembly shall provide that the benefits of The University of North 
Carolina and other public institutions of higher education, as far as prac- 
ticable, be extended to the people of the State free of expense." 

Since 1970, for example, tuition for the academic year at the University 
of North Carolina at Chapel Hill has increased from $225 to $480 for a 
resident of the state and fees from about $173 to $292 for an academic 
year. This ranks the university among the lower-tuition state institutions. 
The public institutions of higher education have for many years been re- 
quired by state law to charge a higher rate of tuition to nonresidents; 
however, this rate has been relatively modest until recent years. In 1983 
the General Assembly passed an act that required the Board of Governors 
to "fix the tuition and required fees charged nonresidents of North Caro- 



[248] The Multicampus University oj North Carolina 

lina ... at rates higher than the rates charged residents of North Carolina 
and comparable to the rates charged nonresident students by comparable 
public institutions nationwide." The act did give the Board of Governors 
the authority to charge graduate teaching assistants or graduate research 
assistants who were graduate students in the same institutions a lower rate 
and to charge other students with "special abilities" a lower rate "pro- 
vided the rate is not lower than the North Carolina resident rate." Under 
this act, the nonresident rate for tuition set by the board for the Univer- 
sity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill was $2,842 for the academic year 
1984-85. The comparable rate for 1970-71 was $950. 

In addition to tuition, there are fees for many other services and pur- 
poses such as athletic fees, health fees, and student activity fees, which are 
charged in support of services that the state by policy does not support. 
There are also student charges to pay for debt obligations that have been 
incurred to finance borrowing to construct self-liquidating facilities. 
Since about i960, the General Assembly, with an occasional exception, 
has required that such facilities as dormitories, student unions, and park- 
ing facilities be financed on a self-liquidating basis, and all of these are 
considered by the Committee on Budget and Finance and approved by 
the Board of Governors. 

The committee and the board have considered and approved since 1 
July 1972 hundreds of requests from the constituent institutions on such 
matters as establishment of enrollment levels, fee schedules, sale of prop- 
erty, acquisition of land, acceptance of gifts, issuance of self-liquidating 
bonds, lease and rental of property, transfer of funds, transfer of endow- 
ment trusts to local campuses, removal of architectural barriers, renova- 
tion of buildings, construction of parking lots and parking decks, waiver 
of tuition for persons over sixty-five and for faculty and staff, acquisition 
of land and construction of additional facilities for the General Admin- 
istration, study of physical plants of the traditionally black institutions, 
construction of a myriad of walks and numerous landscaping projects for 
constituent institutions, approval of every building and every repair cost- 
ing more than $50,000, and approval of roofing projects for a consider- 
able percentage of the buildings on the sixteen campuses. These and other 
activities of the commtitee have required versatility and dedication on the 
part of its members over the years. 



COMMITTEE ON EDUCATIONAL PLANNING, 
POLICIES AND PROGRAMS 

The Code, Section 301-C, makes the following provision for this 
committee: 



The Standing Committees of the Board of Governors [249] 

The Committee on Educational Planning, Policies and Programs 
shall consist of twelve elected members. It shall receive the advice 
and recommendations of the President and make recommendations 
to the Board in all areas pertaining to the development of a coordi- 
nated system of higher education in North Carolina, including: (a) 
the definition of mission and assignment of functions of each con- 
stituent institution, (b) the review of requests for the initiation of 
new degree programs and recommendations for the termination of 
existing programs and (c) the provision of supportive services, facili- 
ties and other resources for the instructional, research and public- 
service programs of the constituent institutions. The Committee 
shall also advise and assist the President and the Board in maintain- 
ing close liaison with the State Board of Education, the Department 
of Community Colleges and the private colleges and universities. It 
shall further recommend to the Board procedures and standards for 
the licensing of non-public educational institutions. 

The chairmen of the committee over the years have been Dr. Hugh S. 
Daniel, Jr., 1973-78; Mr. John R. Jordan, Jr., 1978-80; Mr. David J. 
Whichard III, 1980-81; Dr. E. B. Turner, 1981-82; Mr. F. P. Bodenhei- 
mer, 1982-85; and Mr. Reginald F. McCoy, 1985 — . In April 1974 the 
committee set up two subcommittees, one on professional education and 
the other on undergraduate and graduate education. Because this com- 
mittee was involved in such a broad range of educational activities, it was 
assigned twelve elected members, leaving the remaining members of the 
board to be distributed among the other three committees. The vice 
president for planning has served as the staff officer for this committee. 
Since its creation, it has had two staff officers: Mr. John L. Sanders, 
1973-78, and Dr. Roy Carroll since January 1979. One of the major 
responsibilities of the committee has been the review and approval of 
academic programs. When the General Assembly reorganized higher 
education in the public senior institutions, among the early actions of 
the Board of Governors was that of declaring a moratorium on the initia- 
tion of new academic programs by the institutions until an inventory 
of all programs could be completed. The moratorium was lifted early in 
1974 and Table 1 lists by academic year since that time the number of pro- 
grams that the committee authorized for establishment, planning, and 
termination. 

The staff work for all of the program changes noted in Table 1 and for 
all special studies was under the supervision of Senior Vice President Ray- 
mond H. Dawson of the Division of Academic Affairs. 

In 1973-74 the committee recommended that the degree title in four- 
teen programs be changed. In 1979-80 it recommended an evening pro- 



[250] The Multicampus University of North Carolina 



TABLE I 

Academic Programs Recommended by the Committee 

on Educational Planning, Policies, and Programs for 

Establishment, Planning, and Termination, igyj-ig85 



Academic 


Authorized for 




Authorized for 




Authorized for 




Year 


Establishment* 


Total 


Planning 


Total 


Termination 


Total 


1973-1974 


38-B,3-M 


41 


3-B,l-I,5-M, 
2-D 

12-B,5-M,2-D 


11 


6-M 


6 


1974-1975 


4-B,l-M,l-P 


6 


19 






1975-1976 


2-B.3-M 


5 










1976-1977 


12-B,2-I,12-M, 
3-D 


29 










1977-1978 


5-B,2-I,12-M, 
1-D 


20 


10-B,16-M,7-D 


33 


22-B,3-I,16-M, 
3-D 


44 


1978-1979 


9-B,15-M,7-D 


31 


18-B,1-I,14-M, 

1-D 

8-M 


34 


2-B 


2 


1979-1980 


6-B,4-M 


10 


8 


1-B.l-M 


2 


1980-1981 


6-B,4-M,l-P 


11 


20-B,ll-M 


31 


6-B.4-M 


10 


1981-1982 


7-B.7-M 


14 


1-B,2-M,1-D 


4 


1-B 


1 


1982-1983 


4-B,2-M,l-D 


7 










1983-1984 


5-B,7-M,l-D 


13 


11-B,7-M,1-D 


19 






1984-1985 


9-B,5-M,l-D 


15 

202 


2-B,l-M 


3 
162 




65 


*The abbreviations used are: B = Bach 


elor; 1 = 


Intermediate (Sixth-Year); M = 


Master's; P = Professior 


ial; and 




D = Doctorate. 











gram for the law school at North Carolina Central University. In 1982- 
83 it recommended that the Associate Degree Program in Nursing at 
UNC-Wilmington be replaced by a baccalaureate program. Between 
1981-82 and 1984-85, eighteen of the programs were among the twenty- 
nine new degree programs identified in Section 7 of the consent decree to 
be established in the historically black institutions. 

The Board of Higher Education was responsible originally for licens- 
ing non-public degree-granting institutions of higher education that were 
established after 1923. The committee noted early that this had not been a 
very demanding duty since only three of the thirty-eight private colleges 
and institutions in the state were chartered after that date. Due to a 
change in the policies of the Veterans Administration, however, many 
proprietary schools were finding that it was to their advantage to be able 
to grant two-year associate degrees; hence, in 1974 the committee recom- 
mended rules and standards governing the licensing of such institutions. 
These were modified in February 1976 as the revised Rules and Standards 
for Licensing Non-Public Institutions to Confer Degrees and the supporting 
Guidelines for Interpretation: Rules and Standards. 



The Standing Committees of the Board of Governors l 2 S l ] 

When the State Department of Public Instruction, which serves as the 
Veterans Administration's Agency for approving institutions offering de- 
grees on military reservations, requested that the Board of Governors as- 
sist the department in evaluating such institutions, the committee recom- 
mended that the board decline the invitation. 

In October 1977 the committee recommended that the board sponsor 
an-amendment to the statute to extend the exemption for licensure of 
seminaries to cover Bible colleges and other similar religious groups. The 
exemption was broadened to include all private colleges chartered prior 
to 1 96 1. This exempted the Bible colleges and the three private institu- 
tions that had been subjected to periodic licensure by the board. 

Between 1973-74 an d 1984-85, forty cases involving action on an ap- 
plication for a provisional license, a regular license, or a renewal of a regu- 
lar license by proprietary and other institutions were acted upon by the 
committee and the board. 

During the 1978-79 year the committee recommended that the board 
deny licensure to Nova University, which made application to offer 
the following programs in North Carolina: doctor of education for com- 
munity college faculty; master's and doctor of public administration; 
doctor of education for educational leaders; and master of science in 
criminal justice. These programs were to be offered in extension centers 
known as clusters, but the actual degrees were to be awarded on the Nova 
campus in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. The visiting committee that exam- 
ined the programs came to the conclusion that library resources, physi- 
cal facilities, and the use of visiting faculty were all inadequate for offer- 
ing graduate study of the quality essential for licensing. Nova appealed 
the adverse decision of the Board of Governors to the superior court and 
pursued the case through the State Supreme Court which ruled in favor 
of Nova University. According to the court's decision, the board could 
not require a license of Nova under the existing statute because it did 
not "confer degrees" in North Carolina. Subsequently, the statute was 
amended to cover actual instruction; however, it has not yet been chal- 
lenged in the courts. 

Perhaps the most important function of the Committee on Educational 
Planning, Policies and Programs was that of overseeing the long-range 
planning of the university. It was April 1976 before the first long-range 
plan was actually issued. It was necessary to inventory the programs of 
each of the sixteen constituent institutions and also to study the demo- 
graphic trends in order to allocate projected enrollments to each of the 
instituitions. In addition, some method of classifying the institutions was 
needed to clarify the allocation of roles and functions to each institution. 
The classification system used was based in part on the Carnegie Com- 



[252] The Multicampus University of North Carolina 

mission on Higher Education's Classification of Institutions of Higher Educa- 
tion. The categories were as follows: 

1. Major research universities: North Carolina State University and 
the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 

2. Other doctorate-granting universities: University of North Caro- 
lina at Greensboro 

3. Comprehensive universities: Appalachian State; East Carolina Uni- 
versity; Agricultural and Technical State University; North Caro- 
lina Central University; University of North Carolina at Charlotte; 
and Western Carolina University 

4. General baccalaureate universities: Elizabeth City State University; 
Fayetteville State University; University of North Carolina at Ashe- 
ville; University of North Carolina at Wilmington; and Winston- 
Salem University 

5. Specialized institution: North Carolina School of the Arts 

Starting with the plan issued in 1981, the titles of the institutional cate- 
gories were changed as follows, but the schools in the various categories 
remained the same: 

1 . Research universities I 

2. Doctorate-granting universities II 

3. Comprehensive universities I 

4. Comprehensive universities II 

5. Schools of art, music, and design 

By 1985, Fayetteville State University and the University of North 
Carolina at Wilmington had moved up from Comprehensive universities 
II to I. 

The first edition of Long- Range Planning covered the years 1976-1981, 
and it was intended at the time to issue a volume annually updating the 
plan by one year. This scheme was followed for the next two years, and 
updated plans were issued in November 1977 and in December 1978. The 
first three volumes were edited by Vice President John L. Sanders. This 
schedule proved to be too strenuous, and the next three issues were on a 
biennial basis. The one for 1980-85 was adopted in February 1981. The 
issue for 1982-87 was adopted in September 1983, and the last one for 
1984-89 was adopted in October 1985. These three issues were edited by 



The Standing Committees of the Board of Governors [ 2 53] 

Vice President Roy Carroll. As experience was gained in the planning 
process, the size of the long-range plans decreased dramatically. The first 
volume contained 716 pages and the last 252. 

The six volumes, which are intended both as a record of the present 
and a prospect for the future, necessarily contained much duplication and 
overlap. Vice President Sanders and the staff in General Administration, 
who helped him assemble the first volume, covered a wide range of topics 
in much detail. The volume introduced the University of North Carolina 
and its constituent institutions to the governor and the legislature and to 
the general public. It contained a long and detailed sketch of higher edu- 
cation in North Carolina covering the university, the community college 
system, and the private colleges and universities. It discussed in detail the 
constraints, assumptions, and projections affecting the planning process 
such as demographic data for the general population of North Carolina 
and enrollment projections for higher education in the state. The organi- 
zation and distribution of responsibility for higher education between the 
university, community college system and private higher education were 
described. Such limiting factors as state financial resources for higher 
education and federally established legal imperatives were also treated. 
The plan next described the goals, tasks, and objectives of higher educa- 
tion, including the institutional and statutory mandates for the university 
and the community college system. It also delineated the goals of public 
higher education including access, comprehensiveness of higher edu- 
cational programs, and the effectiveness from the standpoint of both 
quality and the economical use of resources. A long and involved section 
was devoted to instruction, research and public service which closed 
with the real heart of the long-range plan, an academic program plan 
for each of the sixteen constituent institutions containing the following 
divisions: 

1. The academic organization of the institution including the schools 
and colleges around which the various curricular programs were 
organized. 

2. An inventory of all authorized degree programs classified as to 
baccalaureate level, master's level, intermediate level, doctoral level, 
and first professional level. 

3. Authorization to plan new programs including the level at which 
the programs were to be planned. 

4. Enrollments — undergraduate and graduate — authorized for each of 
the next five years with the understanding that the enrollments 
could be revised in the next edition of the long-range plan. 



[254] The Multicampus University of North Carolina 

5. Special responsibilities of the institutions: for example, North 
Carolina State University was the principal land grant institution; 
Pembroke State University was assigned its highest priority to plan 
for the development of programs at the master's level in education; 
the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill was given the re- 
sponsibility to serve as the principal center of graduate education at 
the doctoral level except in those scientific and technological areas 
that were offered at North Carolina State University, and for pro- 
fessional education. 

6. Annual review of the long-range plan. In this connection, institu- 
tions were given specific directions as to the preparations they 
should make for the next edition of the long-range plan. 

This format with some revisions was continued in the next five editions 
of the long-range plan. In later editions, "academic organization" became 
"general statement of educational mission." In some academic program 
plans, the category "discontinuations" was added. 

The planning process begins on the campus of each of the sixteen con- 
stituent institutions which develop separate plans showing their aspira- 
tions for the next five-year period. These plans are discussed with the ap- 
propriate members of the General Administration staff, and the requests 
for new programs and other expansions are screened to prevent unneces- 
sary duplication and facilities that might be redundant. All requests for 
new programs are carefully considered in the office of the senior vice 
president for academic affairs. 

A strong and complete data base is essential for successful planning. 
One of the useful statutory duties of the Board of Governors is that 
of collecting and disseminating information. Over the years and under 
the leadership of three Associate Vice Presidents for Planning — John B. 
Davis, 1972-75; Charles R. Coble, Jr., 1975-78; and Gary T. Barnes 
since 1979 — an efficient system for gathering and processing information 
has been developed, and the appropriate computer facilities have been as- 
sembled. Throughout this period the collection and reporting of infor- 
mation has been directed by Ms. Linda Balfour. The university cooper- 
ates in three important information-gathering activities. The first of these 
is the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System which is the suc- 
cessor to the Higher Education General Information Survey (HEGIS). 
This provides a variety of information about enrollment, degrees con- 
ferred, faculty and staff characteristics, library resources, and institutional 
finances. The university also collects a large volume of information for 
the Office for Civil Rights in connection with the consent decree. These 
reports include information on enrollment, employment, student finan- 
cial aid, student retention, and a variety of other matters. Finally, the 



The Standing Committees of the Board of Governors l 2 SS] 

Planning Division of the university collects North Carolina Higher Edu- 
cation Data known as the NCHED Series. This is particularly valuable to 
all institutions of higher education in North Carolina. It originated under 
the Board of Higher Education in 1967 and has continued throughout the 
years with the results of the survey summarized in the annual Statistical 
Abstract of Higher Education in North Carolina. The data gathering and in- 
stitutional research activities of the Division of Planning are indispens- 
able adjuncts to the management of the sixteen-campus organization of 
the university. It is also necessary in the long-range planning activities of 
the Committee on Educational Planning, Policies and Programs. 

From the first long-range plan in 1976 to the most recent in 1985, three 
basic assumptions have motivated the plans of the Board of Governors. 
The first of these is that planning should be directed toward the improve- 
ment of existing programs rather than the initiation of new ones; second, 
planning should stress the importance of frequent and substantive evalua- 
tion of programs and the revision of courses of study; and third, aca- 
demic planning should be guided by the mission of the institution and 
the quality and availability of its faculty and facilities. From the begin- 
ning, duplication and specialization of programs was a major factor in 
long-range planning. In the 1977 long-range plan, it was stated that "du- 
plication in program offerings or the availability of like programs at a 
large number of institutions is most common at the undergraduate level 
but it is not confined to that level." Duplication is likely to occur in a 
basic discipline that is supportive of several fields, such as mathematics, 
where costly facilities and resources are not required, where student in- 
terest is high and where there is a market for graduates of vocationally- 
oriented programs. Duplication has also been influenced by the problem 
of racial duality. Teacher education which has been a dominant activity in 
many of the constituent institutions has also produced many duplicate 
programs, the majority of which are justified. 

Out of the experience of the last decade, it was concluded in the 1985 
plan that: 

Careful attention has been given to differentiation of function, es- 
pecially with regard to high-cost and limited-need programs. By ad- 
dressing issues and needs within the context of statewide planning, 
the Board has been able to identify and eliminate some unnecessary 
duplication of programs (e.g., of associate degree programs offered 
within The University but more appropriate for a two-year institu- 
tion) and to avoid duplication and substantial costs that would have 
otherwise been incurred (e.g., by resisting pressures for additional 
schools of law or of engineering and for a new school of optometry). 

The most recent plan summed up the general policies concerning 



[256] The Multicampus University of North Carolina 

Planning: "... the Board of Governors laid down these explicit pri- 
orities and objectives: 

a. To broaden geographic access to educational opportunity . . . 

b. To improve and strengthen existing programs that are needed 
as a first priority over the development of new programs . . . 

c. To give priority in new program activity to the establishment 
or expansion of programs that strengthen the institution gen- 
erally and that build upon and reinforce existing programs. 

d. Within the limitation of existing resources, to establish pro- 
grams that respond to clear and demonstrable student demand. 

e. To avoid educationally unnecessary and costly duplication of 
efforts that would impair program quality. 

f. To fulfill the Board's commitments: 

(1) To increase the proportion of black citizens who pursue un- 
dergraduate, graduate, and professional study; 

(2) To ensure equal access to higher educational opportunities 
for all citizens; and 

(3) To encourage the further racial integration of the student 
populations of the constituent institutions." 

In the planning for the various types of institutions, the comprehensive 
universities II, four of which originated as teacher training institutions, 
have tended to continue this activity along with the gradual development 
of liberal arts programs. The University of North Carolina at Wilming- 
ton developed, in addition to teacher education and liberal arts curricula, 
a strong program in marine science. Winston-Salem State University has 
emphasized nursing in addition to teaching. Fayetteville State University 
was encouraged to develop more career-oriented programs for an urban- 
type institution. Both of the universities at Wilmington and Fayetteville 
were encouraged to move to comprehensive university I status. Pembroke 
State has concentrated on teacher education, liberal arts, and certain 
vocationally-oriented programs. In addition, it emphasizes a program in 
the area of American Indian culture. The University of North Carolina at 
Asheville was different in the beginning. It had no tradition of teacher 
education and concentrated after it became a four-year institution in 1964 
on developing a superior liberal arts curriculum. By the late 1970s, it was 
moving toward a greater emphasis upon serving the population of the 
Asheville area and was emphasizing more career-oriented programs. 

Institutions at the comprehensive university I level also emphasized 
teacher education, liberal arts, and vocationally oriented programs at the 
master's level, but some had other specialties. East Carolina University 
was permitted to develop a school of medicine and was approved for five 



The Standing Committees of the Board of Governors [ 2 57] 

Ph.D. programs in the basic medical sciences. North Carolina Agricul- 
tural and Technical State University was an 1890 land-grant institution 
(for black students) and emphasized agriculture and engineering and was 
later allocated a program in animal science. North Carolina Central Uni- 
versity had programs in law, nursing, criminal justice, and library science 
in addition to traditionally strong liberal arts and teacher-education pro- 
grams. Appalachian State University continued its role as a regional cen- 
ter and developed a comprehensive institution with a fairly rich offering 
through the master's level. The same was true for Western Carolina Uni- 
versity which came into competition with the University at Asheville. 
This conflict of goals will be pointed out later. The University of North 
Carolina at Charlotte served a large urban area with the majority of its 
students commuting. It emphasized programs suitable and in demand 
through the master's degree in its area such as architecture, business ad- 
ministration, engineering, nursing education, teacher education, and the 
liberal arts. In a little more than twenty years, it achieved the reputation of 
being one of the most successful new urban institutions in the nation. 

The university at Greensboro, a doctorate-granting university II, was 
encouraged to emphasize a strong undergraduate program in the liberal 
arts and to undertake programs in teacher education leading to the docto- 
rate. It also was allocated a few doctoral programs in the liberal arts and 
offered the only Ph.D. program in home economics in the state. Greens- 
boro experienced some restraint in growth due to the moratorium of 

1972-73- 

The North Carolina School of the Arts, which was in a special cate- 
gory, offered programs in dance, design and production, drama, and 
music. It enrolled students from the junior class in high school through 
the bachelor's degree in most of the fields. The Board of Governors, after 
almost a decade, approved its plan to offer a master's degree program in 
dramatic art. 

The two institutions in the research university I category occupied a 
different position in the planning process. Each had well-developed pro- 
grams when the restructuring of higher education occurred. North Caro- 
lina State University emphasized instruction, both undergraduate and 
graduate, and research in agriculture, engineering, forestry, textiles, ar- 
chitecture, and other technological subjects. It also was allocated by the 
Board of Governors a school of veterinary medicine, which has already 
been discussed. Under the pressure of rapid growth in enrollment, North 
Carolina State developed a considerable number of liberal arts programs 
and even offered the master's degree in some of these. This inability to 
hold down enrollment in the liberal arts and channel more resources into 
technology was a continuous source of concern to some members of the 



[258] The Multicampus University of North Carolina 

board. The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill was recognized 
as the "flagship campus" of the university. It offered programs in most of 
the fields of learning except those in agriculture and technology, and it 
concentrated more on improving its graduate and first professional pro- 
grams and its research facilities than in adding new programs. It had gone 
through a period of rapid growth and was recognized as a major research 
university before 1971. 

In addition to its general planning activities, the Committee on Educa- 
tional Planning, Policies and Programs carried out a number of other ac- 
tivities. It was deeply involved in the Title 6 dispute with the federal gov- 
ernment over almost a decade and reviewed and recommended to the 
Board of Governors all of the various plans, studies and decisions in- 
volved in that epic struggle. It was also called on to make difficult deci- 
sions related to the East Carolina School of Medicine and the Veterinary 
School of Medicine at North Carolina State University. The committee, 
after receiving a report entitled "A New Law School for North Caro- 
lina?" in 1974 recommended that the requests of Appalachian State Uni- 
versity, East Carolina University, and the University of North Carolina at 
Charlotte to plan for another law school be denied. In 1983 an update of 
this study was considered, and the same conclusion that no new law 
school was needed was affirmed. In the meantime, a private school of law 
had been established at Campbell University, and the number of lawyers 
in North Carolina had increased beyond any need for an additional 
school. 

In 1975 the board approved, on the recommendation of the committee, 
the study "Nursing Education: Report and Recommendations," which 
advised that rather than authorizing new baccalaureate programs in nurs- 
ing, the board should improve the existing programs. As a result, the co- 
operative arrangement between the University at Asheville and Western 
Carolina University was developed in 1979. The associate degree pro- 
gram at the University of North Carolina at Wilmington was phased out 
and a baccalaureate program initiated. Nursing programs at the master's 
level were established at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro 
and East Carolina University. The Board of Governors provided for spe- 
cial monitoring and improvement of programs in nursing at Agricultural 
and Technical State University, North Carolina Central University, and 
Winston-Salem State University. 

A special cooperative planning consortium of special education pro- 
grams was created in 1974. The findings and recommendations of this 
consortium led the Board of Governors to create several new programs in 
special education and to call for improvements in existing programs. 

A review and evaluation of teacher education in 1977 was carried out 



The Standing Committees of the Board of Governors [ 2 59] 

under the direction of the Committee on Educational Planning, Policies 
and Programs and was adopted by the Board of Governors. The main 
points of this report included a finding that for the time being the market 
for teachers and, thus, for teacher education was declining. The report 
pointed out that there was an increasing concern about the quality of ele- 
mentary and secondary education and that financial support for research 
and development in teacher education would probably decline. Recom- 
mendations in the study included an insistence that there should be an im- 
provement in the quality of new teachers, that there should be more em- 
phasis on in-service and graduate teacher education programs and that 
some inactive and obsolete degree programs should be discontinued. As a 
result, twenty-six degree programs in the field of education and twenty 
degree program tracks were discontinued and fifteen were merged with 
other programs. 

The committee recommended the Quality Assurance Program to im- 
prove the standards and procedures for the certification of public school 
teachers, and the Board of Governors endorsed a joint resolution with the 
State Board of Education in support of the program. It was designed to 
improve the quality and effectiveness of teachers and to provide for the 
continuing evaluation and improvement of teacher education programs in 
both public and private colleges and universities. A unique feature pro- 
vided for follow-up supervision of beginning teachers after graduation 
from college. Within a short period teacher shortages were once again 
looming and the board was by 1986 engaged in a variety of activities to 
increase both the quantity and the quality of public school personnel. At- 
tention was directed especially toward teachers of mathematics, science, 
and foreign languages and school principals. 

Another review which was called for in the first long-range plan was in 
the health professions other than medicine, dentistry, and nursing. This 
led to the preparation of a report entitled "Health Professions Education 
Program Review." It was divided into two parts — undergraduate and 
graduate programs — which were approved in 1977 and 1978 respectively. 

A study of the pre-baccalaureate programs (associate degree and certifi- 
cate programs) offered in the university was made to determine if there 
was inappropriate duplication with the functions of the community col- 
leges. Some were approved for continuation; for example, the agricul- 
tural institute programs in North Carolina State University and certain 
two-year and certificate programs in the Division of Health Affairs at the 
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill along with a number of asso- 
ciate degree programs in Fayetteville State which were offered at the Fort 
Bragg Center. Others were dropped because they could be more appro- 
priately offered in the community colleges. These included a secretarial 



[260] The Multicampus University of North Carolina 

science program at Elizabeth City State University and associate degree 
programs in industrial technologies at North Carolina Agricultural and 
Technical State University. 

One problem that troubled the Board of Governors for a decade was 
the relationship between the University of North Carolina at Asheville 
and Western Carolina University. The university at Asheville, when it be- 
came a part of the university in 1969, was not interested in offering pro- 
fessional programs and concerned itself mainly with commuting students 
who were interested in the liberal arts. At that time, Western Carolina 
University, which had established a center at Oteen near Asheville, was 
meeting some of the needs of the area for educational and service pro- 
grams. One of the most important of those was nursing. Western Caro- 
lina University was heavily dependent for clinical work in nursing on the 
resources of hospitals located in Asheville. By the mid 1970s, however, the 
university at Asheville was looking for opportunities to expand its pro- 
grams to meet the needs and demands of the community. The Board of 
Governors had already directed Western Carolina to move its teaching ac- 
tivities from Oteen to the campus of the university at Asheville where 
better facilities were available. Included in the tentative plans for expan- 
sion by the university at Asheville were professional degree programs that 
Western Carolina had been teaching for a number of years and was not 
willing to surrender. In 1974 the Board of Governors directed the univer- 
sity at Asheville and Western Carolina to work together in the develop- 
ment of Western Carolina's nursing program rather than develop a second 
one in the university at Asheville. In addition to the joint nursing pro- 
gram, the 1974 agreement called on Western Carolina to offer not only 
master's level education but also undergraduate work in areas involving 
professional programs that were not offered by Asheville. 

By 1980, however, the university at Asheville was no longer the strictly 
liberal arts school it had been in 1970, and it now had several undergradu- 
ate professional programs on which it hoped to build more advanced pro- 
grams. The most significant of these was in the field of management. In 
1980 an agreement between the two institutions approved by the board 
called for all undergraduate instruction in Asheville to be the responsibil- 
ity of the university at Asheville except in nursing, which was a joint pro- 
gram, and in areas where it did not offer courses, such as criminal justice 
and technology. It was agreed that all graduate work would be the re- 
sponsibility of Western Carolina University and that planning for future 
programs would be on a cooperative basis. In spite of the agreement, 
discontent continued, and in 1984 a special study was made by three out- 
side consultants which led to the establishment of a University Graduate 
Center on the campus of the university at Asheville under the direct 



The Standing Committees of the Board of Governors [ 2 6i] 

supervision of the General Administration. It was expected that other 
campuses of the university would establish programs in Asheville and 
that the needs of the southwestern area of North Carolina would be more 
adequately served by a center that was not controlled by either of the in- 
stitutions and would be free to make arrangements that would utilize all 
of the facilities of the university more effectively. The university at Ash- 
eville took over virtually all undergraduate instruction except in nursing; 
Western Carolina continues graduate instruction in business and educa- 
tion; North Carolina State offers some graduate courses in engineering; 
other constituent institutions were considering offering programs in the 
center. 

Other important activities of the Committee on Educational Planning, 
Policies and Programs included the following: recommendation of the es- 
tablishment of a graduate center at Fayetteville State University, which by 
198 1 had changed to a graduate degree program in education allocated to 
the institution; the establishment of graduate centers at Elizabeth City 
State University and at Winston-Salem State University, which utilized 
the graduate faculties of those constituent institutions that had appro- 
priate programs; the recommendation of a new patent policy of the Uni- 
versity of North Carolina in June 1983, which made it possible for the 
university to deal with some of the complex issues in the field of tech- 
nological development that required allocating returns on patents to both 
the institution and the individual inventor. 

The committee and the board also had a sensitive problem that devel- 
oped when the School of Public Health at Chapel Hill undertook to 
restructure its public health nursing program. The school planned to 
change the responsibility for the public health nursing program from a 
separate department to a curriculum which would be under the direct ad- 
ministration of the dean. Objections were raised by public health nurses 
in the state and, under the leadership of influential legislators, the General 
Assembly adopted special legislation forbidding the board from taking 
any action that would impair the separate identity of the Department of 
Public Health Nursing. The committee voted to recommend that the 
board should undertake to get the General Assembly to allow it to pro- 
ceed with making the change. After considerable negotiation, the leg- 
islature authorized the Board of Governors to proceed as it deemed 
appropriate. 

In 1984 the legislature transferred responsibility for the North Carolina 
School of Science and Mathematics to the Board of Governors and in- 
structed the board in consultation with the Board of Trustees of the 
school to recommend to the legislature in 1985 a plan for effecting a satis- 
factory relationship between the Board of Governors and the school. The 



[262] The Multicampus University oj North Carolina 

problem was given careful study and the board recommended that the 
School of Science and Mathematics "be designed as an affiliated School of 
The University of North Carolina." Other recommendations were made 
concerning the constitution of the Board of Trustees of the school, which 
were altered in the statute passed by the legislature. The most important 
functions of the Board of Governors are those of electing a majority of 
the members of the Board of Trustees and of transmitting its budget to 
the governor and the Advisory Budget Commission. 

Finally, one of the most important actions of the committee and the 
Board of Governors was taken in 1984 when minimum undergraduate 
admissions requirements were established, beginning with the fall se- 
mester of 1988 at all sixteen constituent institutions of the university. 
When the delegation of authority was made to the sixteen constituent in- 
stitutions in July 1972, responsibility for establishing minimum under- 
graduate admissions requirements was given to the institutions. It was 
obvious within a few years that the institutions were having to provide a 
large amount of remedial instruction. Criticism had been expressed in 
the legislature because of the expense incurred in providing remedial in- 
struction in courses that many believed should have been provided in the 
high school or community college preparation of college students. At 
about the same time, the State Board of Education increased graduation 
requirements for the high school from sixteen to twenty units. In 1984 
the Board of Governors, with a few amendments at a later date, changed 
its delegation of authority to the individual institutions and required that 
in addition to a high school diploma or its equivalent each student admit- 
ted to any one of the sixteen constituent institutions, should have four 
course units in English, emphasizing grammar, composition, and litera- 
ture; three course units in mathematics, including geometry, first- and 
second-year algebra; two course units in social studies, including one unit 
in United States history; and three course units in science, including at 
least one unit in a life or biological science and at least one unit in a physi- 
cal science and including at least one laboratory course. In addition, it rec- 
ommended that prospective students complete at least two course units in 
one foreign language, and that they take one foreign language course unit 
and one mathematics course unit in the twelfth grade. 

Individual constituent institutions could require other courses in addi- 
tion to the minimum requirements. In determining the admissibility of 
each applicant, constituent institutions would also consider factors other 
than courses completed such as high school grades, rank-in-class, scores 
on Scholastic Aptitude Tests or other tests, and recommendations. When 
these minimum undergraduate requirements go into effect in the fall of 
1988, it is expected that the quality of the preparation of entering students 



The Standing Committees of the Board of Governors [263] 

will enable the university to reduce the amount of remedial instruction 
and utilize its resources more effectively. 



COMMITTEE ON PERSONNEL AND TENURE 

The Committee on Personnel and Tenure has four major responsibilities 
under Section 30 iD of the Code. These are as reported by the committee 
recently: 

(1) to make recommendations to the Board on all personnel actions 
under the jurisdiction of the Board including conferral of permanent 
tenure, appointment of senior academic and administrative officers, 
and faculty and administrative salaries; (2) to review the Code and 
institutional policies and regulations governing tenure; (3) to review 
appeals from faculty members that involved questions of tenure; and 
(4) to act on other personnel matters that involve significant policy 
considerations. 

These responsibilities have involved a vast amount of detailed work on 
the part of the committee. Its chairmen have been Mr. Maceo A. Sloan, 
1973-79; Mr. Daniel C. Gunter, Jr., 1979-83; Mrs. Martha McNair, 



TABLE 2 

Administrative Appointments and Actions Conferring Tenure 
Recommended by the Personnel Committee, 1973- 1Q85 

Administrative Conferrals 
Appointments of Tenure 



1973-1974 


36 


345 


1974-1975 


28 


401 


1975-1976 


28 


331 


1976-1977 


38 


336 


1977-1978 


40 


275 


1978-1979 


43 


255 


1979-1980 


28 


307 


1980-1981 


29 


275 


1981-1982 


28 


285 


1982-1983 


28 


313 


1983-1984 


28 


297 


1984-1985 


48 


341 



[264] The Multicampus University of North Carolina 



TABLE 3 

A Comparison by Rank of the Combined Faculties of the Sixteen Constituent 
Institutions, ^72-1985 

1972-73 1984-85 

Percent Percent 

Professor 92 94 

Associate Professor 78 86 

Assistant Professor 55 72 



1983-84; and former Governor James E. Holshouser, Jr., 1984 — . The 
staff officer for the committee throughout its history has been Senior 
Vice President for Academic Affairs Dr. Raymond H. Dawson. Table 2 
listing the number of administrative appointments and the number of 
conferrals of tenure recommended each year illustrates the volume of work 
in this area over the last twelve years. 

A primary objective of the personnel committee has been faculty im- 
provement. Its success can be measured in part by comparing the percent- 
age of faculty members holding the doctorate or first professional degree 
in 1972-73 with the percentage for 1984-85 by ranks. 

Table 3 indicates that the university was successful in improving the 
educational qualifications of faculty recruited during this period. It is es- 
pecially evident at the entry level where the percentage of assistant pro- 
fessors with a doctorate or first professional degree increased by seven- 
teen percentage points over the twelve-year period. Some appointments 
were influenced by the consent decree signed in 1981 with the Depart- 
ment of Education where a commitment was made to appoint vice chan- 
cellors for development at Elizabeth City State University, Fayetteville 
State University, and Winston-Salem State University in 1982-83. Com- 
mitments were also made respecting the appointment of new faculty with 
the doctorate or other terminal degree. 

One of the principal activities of the Committee on Personnel and 
Tenure during its first few years was guiding the development of tenure 
policies and regulations. As the constituent institutions submitted their 
tenure regulations in 1973-74, it became evident that there were several 
issues that were not covered adequately in the Code. Among these were 
tenure problems that might result from situations involving financial ex- 
igency. The budgetary authority and responsibility of the board required 
that this be anticipated with a section in the Code. Another concern was 
the growing tendency to bring disputes over employment to the courts 
for settlement and for the courts to require more formal procedures be- 



The Standing Committees of the Board of Governors l 2 ^S] 

fore personnel decisions could be made. The Committee on Governance 
in response to these problems drafted a set of amendments to chapter 6 of 
the Code, which addressed such issues as the termination of employment 
for financial exigency or for the termination of a program, impermissible 
reasons for refusing to renew a non-tenured faculty member's contract, 
requirements of due notice in case of nonrenewal, and the establishment 
of an elected faculty grievance-committee on each campus. After these 
amendments were adopted by the board, the constituent institutions were 
required to modify their original tenure regulations to conform to the 
changes and to resubmit them to the board, which approved the amended 
regulations during 1976. Each of the tenure regulations was also changed 
in 1982 to conform to the change in the Code regarding retirement fol- 
lowing the seventieth birthday. 

Circumstances on the individual campuses occasionally necessitated 
changes in tenure policies. For example, the committee recommended 
changes in the tenure regulations of the university at Wilmington to re- 
flect a change in the administrative structure of that institution; at Ashe- 
ville and Chapel Hill changes were made to correct defects or clarify proce- 
dures in the appeals process; at Appalachian State, changes were made to 
clarify tenure procedures; and at all sixteen constituent institutions, changes 
reflected amendments to retirement policy and legislation prompted by 
amendments to the Federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act. 

Over the twelve years beginning in 1973-74, the Committee on Per- 
sonnel and Tenure heard appeals from thirty-one faculty members con- 
cerning matters involving tenure. Some of these were complicated by 
long delays in handling cases at the institutional level. Finally, the com- 
mittee recommended in 1985 and the board adopted time limits on the 
various stages of the appellate process to avoid some of the confusion that 
had occurred in the processing of grievances. 

The committee also considered several matters involving significant 
university policies. With the endorsement of the committee, the board 
approved a resolution concerning the employment of personnel from 
nonlicensed institutions which gave guidance to the sixteen constituent 
campuses in their evaluation of the credentials of prospective faculty 
members. The action taken by the board on 8 April 1977 was as follows: 
"Resolved that effective immediately no degree conferred by educational 
institutions required to be licensed by the State of North Carolina shall be 
recognized by The University of North Carolina for any purpose unless 
such institution is licensed." 

The committee reviewed the participation of the university in Gover- 
nor Hunt's Executive Order Number 1 on ethics and submitted a list to 
the board of seventy-three senior administrative officers who should file 
statements of economic interests. 



[266] The Multicampus University of North Carolina 

During the 1977 session of the North Carolina General Assembly, there 
was considerable discussion of the work load of university faculty mem- 
bers. One representative was particularly persistent in pursuing this sub- 
ject. The General Assembly adopted a resolution that directed the Board 
of Governors to conduct a special study of (1) faculty work load, (2) the 
tenure system, and (3) related professional work of the faculty of con- 
stituent institutions of the University of North Carolina. The board was 
required to report the findings of its study to the General Assembly by 
the 1979 session. The study was conducted under the aegis of the Com- 
mittee on Personnel and Tenure and had a steering committee consisting 
of the chief academic officer and a faculty representative from each in- 
stitution. An elaborate survey was conducted, which involved a review of 
studies by other states, twenty of which had made surveys in the previous 
five years; the approach by North Carolina; and the questionnaire and 
definition of work load in the academic context. The weekly work load 
of some 6,500 full-time and part-time faculty members was analyzed. 
There was also a section on the research and professional activities of the 
faculty and another on the institutional and other service activities of the 
faculty. The study entitled "Report on Faculty Work Load and Academic 
Tenure in The University of North Carolina" was presented to the Board 
of Governors by Mr. Maceo A. Sloan, chairman of the committee, on 9 
February 1979. He concluded: 

Finally, our study found that the tenure policies established in The 
Code of The University, as well as the regulations and procedures es- 
tablished by each institution, are consistent with general national 
practices and standards. The findings presented in the report support 
the conclusion that the tenure system is being effectively managed, 
and that it is a factor of basic importance in the maintenance of aca- 
demic freedom and in the recruitment and retention of excellent 
faculty. 

The study was duly transmitted to the General Assembly. It did not 
fully satisfy the member whose insistence had caused its production; 
however, the majority of the members were satisfied with the contents of 
the report and were not interested in pursuing it further. 

The study did lead to greater interest in the "external professional ac- 
tivities of faculty and other professional staff" of the university. A policy 
on this matter was adopted in 1979 following the study on faculty work 
load. The Committee on Personnel and Tenure began reexamining this 
policy in November 1983. On 8 June 1984, Mrs. Martha McNair, chair- 
man of the committee, reported that it continues to encourage external 
professional activity by faculty and other professional staff "because we 
believe it is in the University's interests as well as the public interests that 



The Standing Committees of the Board of Governors [267] 

they do so. It is also clear, however, that these activities must not stand in 
the way of the performance of University duties, and so we have set stan- 
dards that must be met if the activity is to be approved." 

A revised policy statement was then adopted which clearly set forth the 
procedure that was to be followed by all members of the faculty and pro- 
fessional staff who engage in consulting or other outside activities for 
remuneration. 

In February 198 1 the committee recommended to the board a set of 
employment policies covering those state employees who were exempt 
from the State Personnel Act but who were not faculty members or senior 
administrative officers. 

Mr. Daniel Gunter, chairman of the committee, in presenting the re- 
port, reminded the board that for approximately two years the president's 
staff and the institutions had been trying to develop a set of employment 
policies covering about 1,500 persons on the sixteen campuses who were 
not under the State Personnel Act and were not faculty members or senior 
administrative officials. The recommendation of the committee was 
adopted and since that time the regulations have been known as "Employ- 
ment Policies for University Employees Exempt from the State Personnel 
Act." It describes the scope and applicability of employment covered 
by the policies; appointments to covered positions; discontinuation of 
employment in covered positions; review of employment decisions and 
grievances; equal employment opportunity; protected activity; holiday 
and leave entitlement; statutory and other rules of employment; and 
implementation. 

With the Committee on University Governance, the Personnel Com- 
mittee reviewed the procedures for the chancellor selection process. The 
only statement relating to the process contained in the restructuring act 
reads as follows: "The Board shall also elect, on nomination of the Presi- 
dent, the Chancellor of each of the constituent institutions and fix his 
compensation. The President shall make his nomination from a list of not 
fewer than two names recommended by the institutional Board of Trust- 
ees" [G.S. 116-11(4)]. 

An attempt to establish a formal procedure was made in the 7 July 1972 
delegation of duty and authority to boards of trustees as follows: "in the 
event of a vacancy in the Chancellorship, the Board of Trustees shall es- 
tablish a Selection Committee composed of representatives of the Board 
of Trustees, the faculty, the student body and alumni. The Board of 
Trustees, following receipt of the report of the Selection Committee, 
shall recommend at least two names for consideration by the President in 
designating a nominee for the Chancellorship for approval by the Board 
of Governors." 

This process proved to be awkward in the years ahead. The president 



[268] The Multicampus University of North Carolina 

on occasion was confronted with two nominees about whom he had little 
information, and there was always the possibility of presenting him with 
a nominee that the Board of Trustees favored and a second nominee who 
was not likely to be selected by the president. To improve the process, 
in 1983 the two committees recommended to the board the following 
amendment, which was adopted to be inserted between the first and sec- 
ond sentences of the original delegation: 

Upon the establishment of the Search Committee, the Chairman 
of the Board and the President shall jointly establish a budget and 
identify staff for the Committee. 

The Search Committee, through its Chairman, shall make a pre- 
liminary report to the President when the Committee is preparing a 
schedule of interviews of those persons it considers to constitute the 
final list and from among whom it anticipates the Trustees' nomi- 
nees will be chosen, and the President will be given an opportunity 
to interview each of these candidates. 

The recommendation also replaced the word "selection" with the more 
appropriate word "search." 



THE COMMITTEE ON UNIVERSITY GOVERNANCE 

The duties and responsibilities of the Committee on University Gover- 
nance are described as follows in Section 301 E of the Code: 

The Committee on University Governance shall consist of six 
elected members. It shall keep under continuous review the applica- 
tion and interpretation of the Code of The University of North 
Carolina and all delegations of authority under that code, and it shall 
make such recommendations to the Board of Governors for the 
amending of the Code or delegations of authority as may seem ap- 
propriate for the effective and efficient operation of The University 
of North Carolina and its constituent institutions. The Committee 
shall make nominations to the Board of Governors for elections to 
the boards of trustees of the constituent institutions. Except as pro- 
vided in Section 301D with reference to questions of tenure arising 
out of Chapter Six of this Code, the Committee shall receive all re- 
quests from members of the faculties, staffs and student bodies of the 
constituent institutions for appellate review by the Board of Gover- 
nors pursuant to Section 501 C(4) of this Code. 

The chairmen of this committee have been Mr. Jacob H. Froelich, Jr., 
1973-78; Mr. Luther H. Hodges, Jr., 1978-79; Mr. J. Aaron Prevost, 



The Standing Committees of the Board of Governors [269] 

1979-82; Mr. Philip G. Carson, 1982-84; and Mr. B. Irvin Boyle, 
1984 — . The staff officer for this committee from its initiation was Mr. 
John P. Kennedy, Jr., secretary of the university. One of the most impor- 
tant duties of the committee and its most time-consuming function was 
that of recommending to the Board of Governors nominees for member- 
ship on the local boards of trustees of the sixteen constituent institutions. 
The local boards are composed of thirteen members, eight appointed by 
the Board of Governors and four by the governor of the state and the 
elected president of the student body. In every odd-numbered year, the 
Board of Governors elects four persons to each of the sixteen boards of 
trustees and the governor appoints two. The terms of office of all trust- 
sees excluding the president of the student body is for four years. A per- 
son who has served two four-year terms in succession is ineligible to suc- 
ceed himself. The committee, in making its nominations, must suggest 
sixty-four persons every two years and coordinate those with the thirty- 
two who are appointed by the governor. Finding and persuading quali- 
fied persons to undertake the duties and responsibility of a trustee in- 
volves much correspondence and telephoning. There are also delicate re- 
lationships with the governor of North Carolina. Since 1973 literally 
hundreds of prospective candidates have been considered. The committee 
has had to make special efforts to nominate persons across a wide geo- 
graphical area and secure a balance among the various groups that need to 
be recognized. Consideration has to be given to age, sex, race, and many 
other factors in the selection of trustees. By 1980 the committee was able 
to report that progress had been made in improving certain categories of 
representation on the boards. For example, the number of women trust- 
ees increased between 1973 and 1980 by 117 percent and the number of 
black trustees by 61 percent. The committee received help from all the 
members of the Board of Governors, from chancellors, and from other 
interested sources in locating possible nominees. 

In 1979 the committee reported that it would no longer recommend for 
reappointment trustees who had served for exceptionally long periods of 
time. Instead, the committee began replacing such individuals and rec- 
ommended that the institutional boards honor them by creating a cate- 
gory such as "Honorary Trustee" or "Trustee Emeritus." The committee 
in 1975 came to the conclusion that some chairmen of local boards had 
been serving for a longer period of time than was considered appropriate. 
The committee did not have the authority to change the situation; how- 
ever, it did recommend that local boards adopt a policy of allowing a 
chairman to serve no more than two consecutive years before rotating off 
for a year. This practice is now followed widely. 

The committee also makes nominations for the membership of several 
other boards; among them, the North Carolina Memorial Hospital Board; 



[270] The Multicampus University oj North Carolina 

the Pitt County Memorial Hospital, of which the board nominates a part 
of the membership; the Research Triangle Foundation; and half of the 
members of the University of North Carolina Center for Public Tele- 
vision. In addition, the committee has consulted with the president on 
his nominations for the Advisory Committee of Presidents of Private 
Colleges. 

A joint nominating committee, consisting of six members of the Com- 
mittee on University Governance and four members of the Committee on 
Educational Planning, Policies and Programs, nominated the members of 
the board of the center for the Advancement of Teaching at Western Caro- 
lina University and the board of the North Carolina School of Science 
and Mathematics. 

Another important function of the Committee on University Gover- 
nance has been that of considering recommendations and additions to the 
Code that are suggested from time to time. The achievements of the com- 
mittee in this area have already been discussed. 

The committee also deals with appeals from members of the faculty 
and staff that do not involve tenure regulations; the latter are heard by the 
Committee on Personnel and Tenure. Through June 1985 the Committee 
on University Governance had heard eighteen cases. It joined with the 
Committee on Personnel and Tenure in recommending that certain limits 
be established for the handling of appeals directed to the president and the 
board. It also reviewed the statutes concerning appeals from the School of 
Science and Mathematics and came to the conclusion that the Board of 
Governors had no jurisdiction over such appeals. 

The committee has been concerned with a number of other issues, sev- 
eral of which are not explicitly assigned to it in the Code. The Board of 
Governors asked the committee to study the authority and responsibility 
of administrative officers of the university and their relationship to the 
Board of Governors and make any recommendations to the board that 
the committee considered appropriate. The president's staff, at the re- 
quest of the committee, gathered information from other systems and 
gathered advice and suggestions from university personnel. The result 
was a document entitled "Policies Concerning Senior Administrative 
Officers of The University of North Carolina" adopted by the board on 
13 September 1974. It pointed out that the duties and responsibilities of 
the president and the chancellors and their senior staff together with their 
relationships with one another, the Board of Governors, the boards of 
trustees, and all other officers and agencies were stated in Chapter V of 
the Code. The purpose of the policy statement was to further clarify cer- 
tain factors that were not treated in the Code. The term senior officers of 
the university was defined as including the president, his senior staff, the 



The Standing Committees of the Board of Governors [ 2 lA 

chancellors, and the senior academic and administrative officers of the 
constituent institutions including those with the rank of vice chancellors, 
provost, or dean and other officers of equivalent rank. The document also 
covered leaves of absence and candidacy for political office, and it makes 
clear that they do not have tenure in their administrative positions. The 
procedure for terminating appointments to administrative procedures 
was outlined. In a case that arose shortly after the adoption of the poli- 
cies, it was determined by the board that the "policy has the effect of pro- 
hibiting a Chancellor from binding himself henceforth to any fixed mini- 
mum term for a Dean or other senior administrator or to any fixed 
consultative procedure for terminating the appointment." The right of 
appeal, however, was emphasized in the policy document. 

The committee has been concerned with the orientation of boardmem- 
bers. This includes both members of the Board of Governors and of in- 
stitutional boards of trustees. Each class of new Board of Governors 
members is given formal information about the operation of the board, 
and they are all given an opportunity to visit each of the sixteen constitu- 
ent institutions. The university holds on a biennial basis a conference for 
members of boards of trustees. This usually involves at least a day of sem- 
inars and lectures concerning the governance of the university and has 
been highlighted frequently by the participation of national authorities 
on university governance. 

In 1974 the committee met with representatives of the Faculty Assem- 
bly. The representatives requested that the Board of Governors encourage 
the establishment of an effective faculty body on each campus that could 
advise the chancellor and that the chairman of such a faculty body be per- 
mitted to attend the institutional board meetings and speak on matters 
where the faculty had special interests or competence. As a result of this 
meeting and further negotiations, the following amendment was added to 
Section 502D(2) of the Code: 

The Chancellor shall be responsible for insuring that there exists 
in the institution a faculty council or senate, a majority of whose 
members are elected by and from the members of the faculty. The 
general faculty, however, which shall include at least all full-time fac- 
ulty and appropriate administrators, may function as the council or 
senate. The faculty shall be served by a chairman elected either by 
the general faculty or by the council or senate. However, the Chan- 
cellor may attend and preside over all meetings of the council or sen- 
ate. The council or senate may advise the Chancellor on any matters 
pertaining to the institution that are of interest and concern to the 
faculty. 



[272] The Multicampus University oj North Carolina 

In addition to insuring the establishment of a council or senate, 
the Chancellor shall insure the establishment of appropriate proce- 
dures within the institution to provide members of the faculty the 
means to give advice with respect to questions of academic policy 
and institutional governance, with particular emphasis upon matters 
of curriculum, degree requirements, instructional standards and 
grading criteria. The procedures for giving advice may be through 
the council or senate, standing or special committees or other con- 
sultative means. 

Each of the sixteen constituent institutions now has some form of fac- 
ulty government and in most of the institutions, faculty representatives 
regularly attend meetings of the Board of Trustees. The extent of faculty 
participation in these meetings, however, is limited. 

In 1976 faculty representatives confered with the committee again on 
certain problems. They desired to have faculty representation as voting 
members of the Board of Trustees pointing out that students had such 
representation. The faculty did not make any headway with this request. 
They are employees of the state, and all state employees are prohibited 
from serving on either local boards or the Board of Governors. In the 
case of a request for the guarantee of a certain number of faculty members 
on chancellor search committees, no action was ever taken; however, in 
the procedure included in the delegation of duty and authority to Boards 
of Trustees for nominating a chancellor, there is provision for faculty 
representation. 

At one time the committee was concerned with the smooth operation 
of the board's business. In 1975 it compiled attendance records for all the 
standing committees and urged members to make an effort to attend all 
committee meetings. A year later, it circulated a questionnaire to board 
members to obtain suggestions for the improvement of the conduct of the 
board's meetings. 

The committee had a long and continuing concern with obtaining lia- 
bility insurance for members of the board, institutional trustees, and uni- 
versity employees. It conferred with many representatives of the insur- 
ance industry, attorneys, the Institute of Government, and other sources. 
Finally, after two years of study, an acceptable policy was found which 
was still in force in the spring of 1986. 

The committee also studied cases and issues to determine whether ju- 
dicial proceedings were appropriate. In July 1975 it recommended autho- 
rizing judicial proceedings by the attorney general against a degree recipi- 
ent when it was discovered that his thesis appeared to have been based on 
plagiarism. Other recommendations to begin judicial proceedings from 
time to time include: allowing the university at Asheville to bring suit in 



The Standing Committees of the Board of Governors [ 2 73] 

Florida to recover funds paid in connection with an officially sanctioned 
student activity; allowing the Center for Public Television to bring suit 
against the Westinghouse Broadcasting Corporation to recover damages 
resulting from a lease violation; allowing the university at Chapel Hill 
to bring suit against the U.S. Agency for International Development; 
and allowing three suits by the university at Chapel Hill and North Caro- 
lina State University against others for unauthorized uses of registered 
trademarks. 

Much time was spent by the committee in developing a policy on the 
political activity of university employees. A statement was recommended 
in 1976 entitled "Political Activity of University Employees," which 
applied to employees who were exempt from the State Personnel Act. 
Under the policy adopted by the board, leaves of absence in certain cases 
of employees seeking office or even a requirement that the university 
position be vacated by those who incurred full-time, long-term obliga- 
tions was stipulated. A revision of the policy concerning candidacy and 
service in the General Assembly of North Carolina in February 1985 re- 
sulted in little substantive change; however, the interpretation of the pol- 
icy appears to be less rigorous. 

In 1979 the General Assembly passed legislation that stipulated the for- 
mation of the Center for Public Television. The center was to remain 
under the aegis of the Board of Governors but be guided by a Board of 
Trustees, half of whom were to be elected by the Board of Governors. 
The committee advised the president concerning a plan for the reorgani- 
zation of educational television. It prepared a resolution establishing the 
center and made nominations for appointments to trusteeships. The cen- 
ter under the plan adopted by the Board of Governors on 17 April 1980 
began functioning smoothly and effectively, and the committee has been 
commended for its work in reorganizing this important division of the 
university. 

The committee has continued to participate in the handling of a wide 
range of issues. Recently, for example, it met in joint session with the 
Committee on Personnel and Tenure to discuss changes in the board's re- 
tirement policies. It has recommended a resolution concerning security 
clearance for North Carolina State University personnel. It has heard ar- 
guments concerning a proposed name-change for Pembroke State Uni- 
versity, which it recommended be tabled. It has discussed a proposal to 
adopt a new seal for the university. It has recommended that the Board of 
Governors refrain from becoming involved in a controversy concerning 
the curriculum and school-construction needs of the Jackson County 
Public Schools where the campus school on the Western Carolina Uni- 
versity campus at Cullowhee is being phased out. 



CHAPTER 14 



Relations with Private Institutions 



With a few exceptions, the relations between the public and private 
sectors of higher education in North Carolina have been cooperative 
and congenial over the past century. The University of North Carolina 
worked with such private institutions as Trinity, Wake Forest, and David- 
son to organize the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools in 
1896. This organization has had a great influence through its accreditation 
activities in the southern region. Its activities, to a considerable extent, 
shaped the course of higher education in this region until recent years. 

Colleges and universities in the public sector also joined with the 
private sector in organizing the North Carolina College Conference in 
1 92 1, which is now known as the North Carolina Association of Colleges 
and Universities. This organization has had a statewide influence on 
higher education from its founding. For many years, it served as an ac- 
crediting agency for North Carolina institutions that were striving to 
meet standards for admission to the Southern Association. It has had a 
series of committees over the years that have dealt with the many prob- 
lems that have confronted higher education in periods of prosperity, de- 
pression, war, rapid expansion, and population change. Annually, it has 
assembled not only delegates from the colleges of North Carolina but 
also representatives from such subgroups as academic deans, registrars 
and admissions officers, the Association of Junior Colleges, of church- 
related colleges, and many other groups. Leadership for this organization 
from the public sector has been active and influential from the beginning. 

The Joint Committee on College Transfer Students was formed by the 
association in 1964 by bringing together three representatives each from 
the University of North Carolina, the State Board of Education (which 
was responsible for community colleges and technical institutes at that 
time), the Association of Private Junior Colleges, and three members-at- 
large appointed by the association. Since that time the committee has 
been reconstituted. It is now composed of twelve members, four ap- 
pointed by the University of North Carolina, four by the State Board for 
Community Colleges, and four by the Association of Independent Col- 

[274] 



Relations with Private Institutions l 2 7$] 

leges and Universities. It continues to function under the sponsorship of 
the association but the General Administration of the university fur- 
nishes the secretariat of the committee and publishes its Guidelines for 
Transfer and other materials. This committee has been one of the most 
successful cooperative ventures between the public and private institu- 
tions and has been able to formulate guidelines that in most instances are 
accepted voluntarily by institutions in evaluating the credentials of stu- 
dents who transfer from two-year to four-year colleges or those who 
transfer from one four-year college to another. 

Perhaps the closest and most continuous example of cooperation has 
been between Duke University and the University of North Carolina. 
The University of North Carolina sponsored Duke University for mem- 
bership in the Association of American Universities. They united in 
forming the Research Triangle Institute, which they own jointly. They 
have cooperated for many years in the acquisition of certain categories of 
library materials. They worked together in establishing the law school 
and a program of graduate studies at North Carolina Central Univer- 
sity. The university recommended and the state legislature appropriated 
money for subsidizing the Duke medical school and for providing schol- 
arships for medical students. Duke accepted responsibility for one of the 
Area Health Education Centers (AHEC). From time to time, there have 
been provisions for students from some institutions in the University of 
North Carolina and students at Duke University to register for courses in 
selected fields on campuses of both universities. The presence of Duke 
University, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and North 
Carolina State University at Raleigh has made possible the development 
of the Research Triangle and has provided in North Carolina one of the 
great research centers in the nation, comparable to those in the San 
Francisco Bay area and in Cambridge, Massachusetts. 

There has also been cooperation with Bowman Gray Medical School of 
Wake Forest University where, on recommendation of the University of 
North Carolina, a subsidy and scholarships are provided for that school. 
In addition, the Bowman Gray Medical School assumed responsibility for 
the AHEC in its area. 

Other examples of cooperation are consortiums between the private 
institutions and the constituent institutions of the university in the Ra- 
leigh and Greensboro areas where selected programs are available to stu- 
dents in all of the institutions of the consortia. 

The Board of Governors of the university is responsible for licensing 
any new college that might be established in North Carolina, for licens- 
ing proprietary institutions that apply for permission to give associate de- 
grees, and for licensing institutions that want to come into North Caro- 



[276] The Multicampus University of North Carolina 

lina to offer programs of instruction. Some of the persons who serve on 
the inspection committees for this purpose are drawn from the private 
sector. 

There are many other illustrations of cooperative ventures between the 
private and the public institutions of higher education in North Carolina. 
They frequently work together in influencing federal legislation. They 
cooperate in a variety of national scholarly and professional organiza- 
tions, and there are a number of volunteer associations with membership 
from both public and private institutions. 

For a century before the restructuring of the university there had been 
little competition between the public and private sectors. In the last two 
decades of the nineteenth century, when the University of North Caro- 
lina began to receive miniscule support from the state legislature for 
operating expenses, the Baptist and Methodist colleges raised some ob- 
jections, but these had little influence. At the time of the good health 
movement in North Carolina immediately after World War II when the 
four-year medical school at Chapel Hill was under consideration, Dean 
Wilburt C. Davison of the Duke medical school was outspoken in his op- 
position to it. This too had no influence. 

The private institutions have usually been supportive of any measure 
that would strengthen the public institutions. As a matter of fact, they 
had good reason for this because for over forty years following 1920 en- 
rollments in public institutions and in private institutions were about 
equal. Each had about as many students as it could handle. When the 
great bulge in college enrollment was anticipated following the high 
birthrate immediately after World War II, the private institutions in North 
Carolina estimated at first that they would be able to increase enrollment 
by only about 1 1,000 students. The public institutions following the Car- 
lyle Report began to prepare for great expansion. Four new four-year 
state institutions were established and the community college system was 
organized. The older institutions, using self-liquidating bonds to build 
student facilities and state grants to build academic facilities, prepared for 
the coming inundation. 

The private sector as early as 1955 began to expand. Three new col- 
leges were built and a number of junior colleges were converted to four- 
year status. The private sector, in some instances, became deeply in- 
debted to the federal government for construction loans. 

The great expansion occurred during the period from about 1962 to 
1975. Enrollment in North Carolina public colleges and universities dur- 
ing this period increased from 43,419 to 119,294. During this same 
period enrollment in the private institutions increased from 37,385 to 
49,350. By this time, 70.7 percent of the students were enrolled in the 



Relations with Private Institutions [ 2 77] 

public institutions, including college parallel enrollment in the commu- 
nity colleges, and 29.3 percent in the private institutions. In the private 
sector, 45.7 percent or 22,548 were nonresidents while only 10.9 percent 
or 12,963 of those registered in the public institutions were out-of-state. 
This was the period when, as a result of the Vietnam War, there was 
creeping inflation. 

By 1968 some of the small private colleges were beginning to anticipate 
financial difficulties ahead. Governor Terry Sanford, during his admin- 
istration, had become interested in the problems of private colleges and 
universities. It was reported that he and his budget director, Mr. David 
Coltrane, discussed with some of the members of the General Assembly 
the possibility of appropriating to the private colleges $325 for each 
North Carolina undergraduate they enrolled. This proposal, if it were ac- 
tually made, did not arouse interest at the time. Governor Sanford, how- 
ever, did bring about the reorganization of what is today known as the 
College Foundation, which has been instrumental in providing loans for 
many thousands of college students over the past twenty years. 

In 1968 the North Carolina Board of Higher Education completed its 
study, Planning for Higher Education in North Carolina, which was directed 
by Dr. Cameron P. West. The study included a chapter on student finan- 
cial aid. The board did not have enough information to make a recom- 
mendation at that time, but it did suggest that the 1969 General Assembly 
authorize a special commission composed of legislators and other dis- 
tinguished citizens to study the matter of student aid and make recom- 
mendations to the General Assembly. The commission was authorized, 
and Representative Charles W. Phillips, the chairman, and nineteen other 
members reported to Governor Robert W. Scott and the General Assem- 
bly of 1 97 1 in two volumes. The first volume covered its findings with 
respect to student aid and made the following recommendations concern- 
ing basic policy questions that had been identified: 

1. A comprehensive state administered and state supported system of 
student financial aid should be available to North Carolina students 
attending both public and private post high school educational in- 
stitutions in North Carolina. 

2. A State program of student financial assistance should make aid 
available to North Carolina students attending approved post high 
school institutions, public and private, in North Carolina, through 
the baccalaureate level. 

3. A State student aid program should include aid to students attend- 
ing accredited proprietary institutions in North Carolina. 



[278] The Multicampus University oj North Carolina 

4. A comprehensive system of student aid should be administered by 
a centralized agency which makes awards directly to North Caro- 
lina students. 

5. A State supported system of student financial aid should seek to 
eliminate aid gaps among institutions and compensate for differ- 
ences in institutional resources that exist. 

6. A State supported system of student financial assistance should 
make aid available only on the basis of need. 

7. A State program of student financial assistance should take into 
consideration variations in costs between different types of institu- 
tions; provided, however, that aid to a North Carolina student at- 
tending a North Carolina private institution should not exceed the 
true cost which would have been paid by the State (aid and tuition 
subsidy) if he had elected to attend a comparable public institution 
in North Carolina. 

The report went to the General Assembly while it was engaged in con- 
troversy over restructuring. By Chapter 744 of the Session Laws ofigyi, 
the General Assembly established a state policy of general financial assis- 
tance to the private sector only. The financial plight of the institutions 
themselves had come to take equal rank with the needs of the students. 
The declared reasons for enactment of the plan was to aid needy students, 
to save state funds by encouraging students to enroll in private rather than 
enroll in public institutions, and as stated in the preamble of the act, to 
help "private institutions [which] have, in recent years, found it increas- 
ingly difficult to meet operating expenses." 

Two plans were included in the act. The first provided a financial incen- 
tive to private institutions to increase the number of North Carolina resi- 
dent undergraduates that they enrolled by paying them up to $450 for 
each additional such student enrolled in the fall of 1972 over the number 
enrolled in 1970. In the first year of operation (1972-73), twenty institu- 
tions reported gaining 1,169 students and twenty other institutions re- 
ported losses totaling 862. This was a net gain of 307 by the private in- 
stitutions; however, since the state had to pay for all of the gains, it cost 
$450,000. This part of the statute establishing the bounty program still 
remains in force; however, no funds were appropriated to implement it 
after that first year. The second part of the statute has remained in opera- 
tion since 1972. It provides for a stated amount of money to be paid to the 
institution for each full-time equivalent (FTE) undergraduate North 
Carolina resident enrolled on 1 October in a private college or university 
accredited by the Southern Association excluding theological seminaries 



Relations with Private Institutions [ 2 79] 

and Bible colleges. The act was originally intended to be administered by 
the Board of Higher Education. The restructuring act transferred this re- 
sponsibility to the Board of Governors. 

In the restructuring act, chapter 1244 of the Session Laws ofigyi, the 
Board of Governors was given several responsibilities concerning the pri- 
vate institutions of higher education. All of these came out of the experi- 
ence of the Board of Higher Education and were probably contributed by 
members of the Board of Higher Education staff when the act was in the 
drafting stage. In G.S.i 16-11(1), the Board of Governors is directed to 
"plan and develop a coordinated system of higher education in North 
Carolina" and to "maintain close liaison with . . . the private colleges and 
universities of the State." It is also directed to administer "state- wide fed- 
eral or State programs that provide aid to institutions for students of 
postsecondary education through a State agency" (excluding programs 
for the community colleges). In G.S. 116-11(11), it is provided that "the 
Board shall assess the contributions and needs of the private colleges and 
universities of the State and shall give advice and recommendations to the 
General Assembly to the end that the resources of these institutions may 
be utilized in the best interests of the State." Until it was repealed in 1983, 
this was also a part of G.S. 116- 1 1(1 1): "All requests by private institu- 
tions of higher education for State assistance to the institutions or to stu- 
dents attending them shall be submitted first to the Board for review and 
recommendations before being presented to any other State agency or to 
the General Assembly." In G.S.i 16- 14(c), it is provided that "the Presi- 
dent with the approval of the Board, shall appoint an advisory committee 
composed of representative presidents of the private colleges and univer- 
sities." G.S. 1 16- 19-22 includes the two plans for making contracts to 
private institutions to aid North Carolina students and the provisions for 
administering the contracts. 

In order to fund the first year of the operation of the contract plan to 
provide aid to needy students, the state appropriation amounted to only 
$26.59 f° r eacn FTE student, a total of $575,000. The plan provided that 
the money would be sent to each of the forty private institutions upon 
receipt of a statement from each institution showing its FTE enrollment 
on 1 October. The amount of money received by the institution was the 
FTE enrollment times the per capita amount that the total funding would 
provide. In the beginning, the institution had to provide scholarships in 
an amount at least equal to its scholarships for the previous year. This 
made it possible to use state funds to replace institutional scholarship 
funds that had been expended in previous years; consequently, not all 
of the amount allocated to an institution actually went into providing 
scholarships for needy students. Only about seventy cents out of each 



[280] The Multicampus University of North Carolina 

dollar was used for scholarships the first year. The remaining thirty cents 
was used by the institutions for other purposes. In the second year of 
operation, only about sixty cents went into scholarships. This situation 
was corrected in 1976-77 when the law was changed to require institu- 
tions to administer the exact amount provided by the state under the 
SCSF as a scholarship (grant) fund to assist financially-needy North 
Carolina students. Need was determined by a standard procedure rec- 
ognzied by the State Education Assistance Authority. 

It is interesting to trace the origin of this fund. The Phillips Commis- 
sion in 1 97 1 recommended a comprehensive statewide program of assis- 
tance for needy students administered by a central agency open to stu- 
dents who might attend both public and private institutions and portable 
(could be used by the student in any institution to which the student 
could obtain admission). 

Following the report of the Phillips Commission, the Board of Higher 
Education also made a study reported in Private Higher Education in North 
Carolina: Conditions and Prospects, by Dr. Cameron P. West, director of the 
Board of Higher Education. In that study the recommendations of the 
Phillips Commission were endorsed with an important caveat to the 
effect that the recommendations be "fully funded." It was claimed that 
only partial funding would drive students into the public institutions. As 
an alternate plan, Dr. West recommended that the state contract with pri- 
vate institutions to use scholarship funds for needy North Carolina stu- 
dents in the amount of $200 for each North Carolinian enrolled and also 
contract with those institutions for a thousand spaces at the rate of $600 
per space. The latter part of this plan never found its way into legislation. 
If his alternate plan were not adopted, he informed the General Assembly 
that "if it wishes to preserve the private institutions of higher education," 
it would have to adopt other procedures at a greater cost and suggested 
that the most likely procedure would be a tuition-equalization plan. To be 
effective, he advised, it "would have to provide to the private institutions 
a minimum of $600 for each North Carolinian enrolled." The cost, he 
suggested, would be $13.8 million a year. 

The General Assembly of 197 1 disregarded the proposals of the Phillips 
Commission and adopted Dr. West's alternative suggestion of a contrac- 
tual scholarship plan together with the ineffective bounty experiment; 
however, it provided only $1,025,000 to fund both programs. In 1973 the 
private institutions through the North Carolina Association of Indepen- 
dent Colleges and Universities asked for $200 per FTE or a total of 
$4,600,000 to fund the Contract Program. The Board of Governors rec- 
ommended only $75 per FTE, but the General Assembly was persuaded 
by the association to adopt its full request for the biennium, which to- 



Relations with Private Institutions [28 1] 

tailed $9,200,000. This was the situation in 1974 when the request for the 
1915-11 budget was under consideration. 

At about this time the North Carolina Association of Independent Col- 
leges and Universities began considering reorganizing the association and 
expanding its legislative requests. Dr. Cameron West, who had been vice 
president for planning on the staff of the General Administration of the 
University of North Carolina, left that position in June 1973 to become 
Executive Director of Higher Education for the state of Illinois to admin- 
ister its expanded program. The association created the position of presi- 
dent and invited Dr. West to return to North Carolina beginning in Oc- 
tober 1974. He was looked upon as a skilled lobbyist who had many 
friends in the General Assembly and who had had enough experience in 
the General Administration to know how to present the association's pro- 
gram to the Board of Governors effectively. The press gave voice to the 
opinion that the return of Dr. West would introduce tension into the rela- 
tionship of the private and public sectors. 

Even before Dr. West arrived, the leadership of the association was 
busy advancing its legislative program for 1975. As early as May 1974, 
President Norman Wiggins of Campbell College, chairman of the asso- 
ciation, met with President Friday to explore ideas concerning tentative 
requests that might be made to the Board of Governors, and President 
Wiggins's ideas were summarized in a letter a few days later. 

The Advisory Council of Presidents of Private Colleges and Univer- 
sities met in Chapel Hill on 18 July 1974, and the Wiggins letter of 30 
May was discussed at length. The council was advised that the private 
colleges should make a specific dollar amount request to the Board of 
Governors and be ready for a hearing on 12 September. On 4 September 
President Arthur D. Wenger of Atlantic Christian college, who had be- 
come chairman of the association, transmitted the request through Presi- 
dent Friday to the Board of Governors. On 12 September President 
Wenger and a number of his colleagues appeared before the Committee 
on Educational Planning, Policies and Programs and made a general pre- 
sentation of their requests. A number of chancellors also appeared. Many 
questions were asked, and the novel nature of the requests left those 
present slightly confused. 

The association asked first that the program of aid to needy North 
Carolina students enrolled in private colleges and universities in an amount 
of not less than $200 per FTE North Carolina student be continued; sec- 
ond, that enabling legislation be enacted establishing the principle that 
the state of North Carolina would provide aid for students enrolled at pri- 
vate colleges and universities in an amount equal to fifty percent of the 
average per capita cost to the state for each FTE undergraduate enroll- 



[282] The Multicampus University oj North Carolina 

ment at the sixteen campuses of the University of North Carolina; third, 
"that the additional aid to students be made available as a tuition grant to 
every full-time North Carolina undergraduate student enrolled as of the 
tenth day of each term" of the nine-month academic year. To implement 
the third request, they asked for $9.2 million for 1975-76 and $14.4 mil- 
lion for 1976-77, which they estimated would provide a $400 tuition 
grant the first year and a $600 grant the second year for each full-time 
North Carolina undergraduate. They did not request full funding of the 
"50 percent principle" for the first biennium. 

A fourth request was for an upward adjustment of the formula that was 
used in determining the need for financial aid. This adjustment had al- 
ready been made for 1975-76. 

The third request bears close resemblance to Dr. West's suggestion of a 
tuition-equalization plan in his 1971 study of Private Higher Education in 
North Carolina. 

Following the slight confusion that attended the 12 September meet- 
ing, the private college representatives asked for a second hearing before 
the Committee on Educational Planning, Policies and Programs, which 
was granted on 8 November. The formal presentation was made by Dr. 
Cameron West, who during the previous month had assumed his position 
as president of the association. This was his first effort following his re- 
turn. It was lengthy and tedious and did not elicit much discussion; how- 
ever, he did with some force remind the members of the committee of 
their duty to "assess the contributions and needs of the private colleges 
and universities." 

The Committee on Educational Planning, Policies and Programs re- 
ported to the Board of Governors on 16 November, and recommended 
that the $4,600,000 in the continuing budget for the contract program 
not be increased and that the program be continued at its present level. 
With respect to the second recommendation, it was pointed out that such 
an escalatory provision did not obtain anywhere in state government and 
that all those making requests were required to explain and defend the 
requests when they were presented to the budget authorities. The third 
request for a tuition assistance program, without reference to the needs of 
either the student or the institution, introduced a new approach to stu- 
dent aid, which was contrary to the board's concept of granting aid on the 
basis of need. When the board was asked to adopt the report, and in con- 
sideration of Dr. West's criticism that the board had not studied the needs 
of private colleges, the report was amended with particular emphasis on 
studying their contributions and needs and reporting to the board in Feb- 
ruary 1975. 

President Friday called a meeting of the Advisory Council of Presidents 



Relations with Private Institutions [283] 

of Private Colleges and Universities on 25 November and informed the 
group of the study that had been mandated by the Board of Governors. 
He invited them to cooperate by supplying information that would be 
useful to the committee in assessing "their needs and contributions." It 
was at this point that tension began to mount between the General Ad- 
ministration and the Association of Private Colleges and Universities. 
Some college presidents were hesitant about supplying information that 
was not already in the public domain. They argued that it would be "an 
unwarranted invasion of their privacy." On 4 December 1974 a letter and 
appropriate forms were sent by President Friday to the presidents of the 
thirty-nine private colleges and universities in North Carolina requesting 
information. Specifically, he asked for the following: 

1. A copy of the institution's operating budget for the current fiscal 
year. 

2. Copies of financial reports for 1971-72, 72-73, and 73-74. 

3. Annual certified audits for 1971-72, 72-73, and 73-74. 

4. An estimate of the number of degrees to be conferred by the in- 
stitution during each of the next two succeeding twelve-months 
periods beginning July 1, 1974. 

5. A report on institutional faculty and staff which would provide 
information on the highest earned degree of faculty members. 

6. A statement of long-range plans that the institution might have 
developed in relation to such objectives as program changes, en- 
rollment projections, staffing, degrees, facilities and financing. 

On 4 December President Samuel R. Spencer, Jr., of Davidson Col- 
lege, who was now speaking for the association, wrote to President Fri- 
day anticipating receiving the request for information and laying the 
foundation for some later delaying tactics. He looked forward to receiv- 
ing the set of forms for supplying additional information; however, he 
added: "I would like to pass on to you several observations expressed by 
our members regarding what we assume will be an updating of the earlier 
1970 study (directed by Dr. West). First, in view of the rather strong posi- 
tion already taken publicly by the staff of the General Administration ad- 
versarial to the requests of the private colleges, there is genuine concern 
about the ability of the same staff to achieve the objectivity highly impor- 
tant to such a study." He then gave the president some gratuitous advice 
about how he could achieve objectivity. Another of his concerns had to 
do with financial records, and he proceeded to lay down conditions for 



[284] The Multicampus University oj North Carolina 

access to the records that amounted to a skilled and subtle use of delay- 
ing tactics. At the beginning of his letter, before questioning the objectiv- 
ity of the staff, President Spencer had stated that the other college presi- 
dents had been informed of the study and "the purpose of this letter is to 
let you know of their favorable responses." In the letter President Spencer 
revealed that "Our membership has suggested that the office of the 
NCAICU be utilized to coordinate the collection of the additional infor- 
mation from all our institutions for transmittal to you." 

President Friday responded to President Spencer's letter on 9 Decem- 
ber, taking issue with his statement concerning the objectivity of the 
General Administration staff in polite but firm language. He also declined 
the suggestion that the NCAICU be utilized in collecting the data, em- 
phasizing that he was following the precedent established by the former 
Board of Higher Education "in dealing directly with each of you" which 
President Friday thought had worked well. "It is important to the Board 
of Governors, for example, the representation regarding Davidson Col- 
lege come directly from you." 

In the meantime, on 4 December a "Memorandum to Presidents of 
Member Institutions of the North Carolina Association of Independent 
Colleges and Universities" from "Sam Spencer, Chairman of the Board 
of Trustees, and Cameron West, President," regarding the request that the 
university had made for information, contained the following statement: 
"We recommend that you do not return these forms until you hear from 
us further." A month later Dr. West sent out another memorandum en- 
closing all of the correspondence between President Spencer and Presi- 
dent Friday and advising with reference to the original 4 December re- 
quest of the university, which the previous memorandum evidently had 
anticipated, no response to Items 1, 2, and 3 until certain impossible con- 
ditions had been met, suggesting that they complete Items 4 and 5 if they 
had the information and if the policies of the institutions should permit, 
and no response to Item 5 at this time. All of this, which had created a 
delay of one month in making a study that was due in February, could 
hardly have been inadvertent. 

President Friday wrote to President Spencer on 3 January 1975 letting 
him know that he agreed that the time for making a 

comprehensive, objective assessment of the contributions and needs 
of the private institutions is limited, but the request made to the 
Board of Governors by the private institutions, and the responsibil- 
ity of the Board to make informed recommendations to the General 
Assembly, have made it mandatory that we complete this task by 
early February. 

I look forward to receiving from you and your colleagues, what- 



Relations with Private Institutions [285] 

ever information you intend to provide, in response to my letter of 
December 9. 

In the meantime, Senior Vice President Dawson and his staff were 
working around the clock to make a study and assessment of the private 
colleges and universities and to formulate an alternate proposal to that 
contained in President Wenger's letter of 4 September 1974. 

President Friday met with President Spencer in Chapel Hill on 22 Janu- 
ary in an attempt to improve relations with the private sector and to bring 
some balance into their negotiations. On 3 February the Advisory Coun- 
cil of Presidents of Private Colleges and Universities met in Chapel Hill 
and the general subject of a need-based program of student aid was pre- 
sented. Two days later, President Spencer wrote a long letter making it 
clear that his association stood on what they had been informed was the 
Advisory Budget Commission's recommendation to continue the con- 
tract program -and institute a new tuition grant program. He expressed 
skepticism of the proposal that had been presented on 3 February. 

The Advisory Council of Presidents of Private Colleges and Univer- 
sities met again on 17 February at which time a memorandum entitled 
"Establishment of a North Carolina Tuition Assistance Grant Program" 
was discussed at length. This program was a tentative part of Senior Vice 
President Dawson's study. It was discussed at length but no consensus was 
reached, and there was agreement that the council would meet again on 
24 February. On 19 February President Spencer wrote a highly critical 
letter to President Friday on the proposed tuition-assistance grant pro- 
gram. His letter and the president's reply were sent to members of the 
Committee on Educational Planning, Policies and Programs. It, in turn, 
held a meeting on 23 February and considered the plan to establish a 
North Carolina tuition-assistance grant program in a public meeting. 
Since the committee could not complete its plan, the meeting of the coun- 
cil that was supposed to be held the next day was postponed. The Commit- 
tee on Educational Planning, Policies and Programs met in Raleigh on 
26 February and went over the proposed tuition grant program in open 
meeting and postponed action on it until 13 March. On 6 March Dr. West 
made a presentation for the private colleges and universities before a joint 
session of the Senate and House Higher Education Committees of the 
North Carolina General Assembly, in which he endorsed and defended 
the program of his association with some fervor. 

At the meeting of the Board of Governors on 14 March 1975, the Com- 
mittee on Educational Planning, Policies and Programs presented the re- 
port on Private Higher Education in North Carolina. Vice-chairman of the 
committee, Mr. William A. Johnson, reviewed the immense amount of 
time and effort that the committee had invested in the preparation of the 



[286] The Multicampus University of North Carolina 

study, a draft of which had been distributed to members of the board at 
the February meeting. He moved that the Board of Governors recom- 
mend to the General Assembly "that the North Carolina Tuition Assis- 
tance Grant Program be initiated beginning in the fiscal year 1976-77 and 
that the present program of State aid authorized in Chapter 744 of the 
Session Laws ofigyi be repealed effective June 30, 1976." 

The report on Private Higher Education in North Carolina had seven chap- 
ters: Objectives; The Private Colleges and Universities: An Overview; 
Present State Policy and Private Higher Education: The 1971 Legislation 
and the Current Program; Contributions of the Private Colleges and Uni- 
versities: Enrollments, Programs and Degrees Conferred; Contributions 
of the Private Colleges and Universities: The Dual System; The Needs of 
the Private Institutions; and Conclusions and Recommendations. 

The board recommended that student eligibility for a North Carolina 
tuition-assistance grant be based on need and that the program be cen- 
trally administered by the Board of Governors. Tuition-assistance grants 
provided under the program, it was recommended, should be not less 
than $100 and not more than $1,100 during each academic year for an 
eligible student attending a private junior college, and not less than $100 
and not more than $1,300 for one attending a private senior college or 
university. It was intended that the College Scholarship Service be used to 
determine eligibility for a grant. To finance the program, the board rec- 
ommended that it be funded at a level of $4,600,000 a year for 1976-77 
and that this amount be adjusted to reflect inflationary costs since 1973. 
This became the platform of the Board of Governors as the dialogue was 
carried on with the representatives of private colleges and universities on 
the problem of aid to private higher education over the next eight years. 

The study evoked much discussion among presidents of private col- 
leges and universities who now adopted as their platform an entitlement 
program known as Legislative Tuition Grants for which all undergraduate 
North Carolina residents enrolled in an accredited private institution 
would be eligible without reference to need on the part of either the stu- 
dent or the college. Their argument, repeated over and over again, was 
that the state "subsidy" to students enrolled in public institutions had 
caused such a gap between the tuition of public and private institutions 
that the latter were in many instances threatened with bankruptcy because 
they could not compete with the public institutions. They posed the stark 
choice between sufficient state aid to all students in private institutions to 
keep them viable or dumping thousands of students on the state system. 

The General Assembly of 1975 was impressed by the argument of the 
private institutions and paid little attention to the tuition-assistance pro- 
gram based on need advocated by the Board of Governors. The Associa- 



Relations with Private Institutions [287] 

tion of Independent Colleges and Universities had built under Dr. West's 
leadership an effective basis of support among the many senators and rep- 
resentatives who had private institutions in their districts. For 1975-76 
and 1976-77 the General Assembly authorized the capitation grant pro- 
gram known as the North Carolina Legislative Tuition Grants (NCLTG) 
and designated the State Education Assistance Authority to administer 
the grants. Under this program an eligible student received $200 per year 
in accordance with rules and regulations established by the authority. Fi- 
nancial need was not a requirement; however, to be eligible, a student had 
to be registered on a full-time basis (at least twelve hours a term). The 
General Assembly also retained the need-based program of financial aid 
to students now called the State Contractual Scholarship Fund (SCSF) to 
be funded at the level of $200 for each full-time equivalent (FTE) registra- 
tion in the institution. From 1976-77 on, the institutions under the con- 
tract they made with the General Administration of the Board of Gover- 
nors were required to put the total amount they received from the state in 
a scholarship fund to assist financially needy North Carolina students. 
Need was determined by a standard procedure, and students who re- 
ceived scholarships from the fund were notified officially by the institu- 
tion of the source and amount of the scholarship. The institution deter- 
mined the amount. 

From 1975 to 1983, when the General Assembly repealed the sentence 
in the statute that made the Board of Governors responsible for reviewing 
requests for funds from the legislature to finance the programs, a dia- 
logue that was frequently acrimonious and unpleasant was carried on. 
The private institutions continued to ask for more funds to support the 
Legislative Tuition Grant Program and were content to maintain the State 
Contractual Scholarship Fund at the $200 level. Each time the private in- 
stitutions filed a request with the Board of Governors, they asked the 
board to support their objective of a tuition grant for each of their stu- 
dents in an amount equal to 50 percent of the "subsidy" the state gave on 
an average to each undergraduate student enrolled in a public senior col- 
lege or university. The Board of Governors continuously opposed this 
"principle" and the General Assembly was also difficult to convince on 
this point; however, the independent sector lobby was able in 1982 to get 
this indefinite commitment from the General Assembly: "By the end of 
1986-87, the General Assembly intends to provide for the private college 
student assistance programs within North Carolina, a reasonable per- 
student funding level compared to the per-student State appropriation 
during the preceding fiscal year for the institutions under the Board of 
Governors of The University of North Carolina." 

This had little substantive meaning because one legislature cannot 



[288] The Multicampus University of North Carolina 

commit its successors on matters involving an appropriation. There was 
constant criticism between the two sectors. On 5 September 1976 the 
chairman of the Board of Governors stated, "I hope the private sector will 
recognize that our primary obligation is to our public institutions." It was 
alleged by the independent institutions that it was obvious the University 
of North Carolina Board of Governors would not be objective about rec- 
ommending state support for private institutions. The public sector re- 
sented criticism of the low tuition that students in public institutions were 
required to pay, and maintained that Article 9, Section 9, of the state con- 
stitution directed the General Assembly as far as practicable to provide 
higher education to citizens of the state "free of expense." The private 
advocates in turn stated that if public tuition was not to be increased, then 
state aid to private colleges would have to be increased to close the widen- 
ing tuition gap. The private advocates also pointed out the relatively low 
out-of-state tuition at public institutions. The public sector argued that 
the attention focused on out-of-state tuition caused it to be increased 
without any benefit to the private institutions. The private institutions 
charged the public institutions with constructing expensive, new build- 
ings while there was unutilized space in the private institutions. The pub- 
lic sector charged that the private institutions were not accountable for 
establishing new and duplicative programs. A careful study by the Board 
of Governors found that there was no need for another law school in the 
state; however, a private institution established a new law school. The 
same institution announced plans to establish a new pharmacy school at a 
time when the pharmacy school at the University of North Carolina at 
Chapel Hill was showing a slight decline in enrollment. And the argu- 
ment continued. By 1978 the propaganda tactics of the Association of In- 
dependent Colleges and Universities were beginning to be counter- 
productive in the General Assembly. Dr. West seized an opportunity to 
accept a college presidency, and the association employed as its president a 
low-key, former state senator, Mr. John Henley, who was more tactful in 
dealing with university officials and state legislators. 

Over the years, the North Carolina Legislative Tuition Grant Program 
increased from $200 per student annual grant in 1975-76 to $650 in 
1982-83. At one time the private institutions had been apprehensive 
about the constitutionality of the program but in March 1977 a three- 
judge federal court upheld the constitutionality of the state's program of 
aid to North Carolina students attending church-afFdiated private col- 
leges. The decision was rendered in the case of a suit filed by a former 
teacher in a private institution. Thejudges cited ajune 1976 United States 
Supreme Court decision that upheld Maryland's aid to church-affiliated 
colleges. 



Relations with Private Institutions [289] 

The Board of Governors responded affirmatively to a request of the 
private colleges and universities and adopted a resolution on 14 May 1982 
in support of a proposed constitutional amendment that would have en- 
abled the private institutions to issue tax-exempt revenue bonds for capital 
improvements. The issue did not pass in the November election of 1982. 

In an attempt to bring about better relations between the public and 
private sectors, an informal ad hoc committee composed of five members 
from the Board of Governors and five from the Council of Trustees of the 
Association of Independent Colleges and Universities was established in 
1980. Mr. Henley took the leadership in setting up the committee which 
also had the endorsement and support of President Friday. The Board of 
Governors was represented by Messrs. Philip G. Carson, William A. 
Dees, Jr. , John R. Jordan, Jr. , James E. Holmes, and William A. Johnson. 
Representing the Council of Trustees were Messrs. William Womble, Wal- 
ter Brown, Joseph Grier, James Johnson, and Charles Wade. It was agreed 
that this informal committee would sit down and discuss the differences 
between the public and private sectors and come up with some recom- 
mendations regarding aid to North Carolina students in private institu- 
tions. With staff assistance from both the General Administration and the 
Office of the Association of Private Colleges and Universities, the com- 
mittee held at least five meetings between April 1970 and July 1982. 

The committee attempted to draft a statement to which both sectors 
would subscribe; however, the private sector stood on its platform of an 
entitlement program supported by the North Carolina Legislative Tuition 
Grants, and the representatives of the Board of Governors stood on their 
platform of tuition-assistance grants for students in private institutions 
based upon need. The committee found it impossible to agree; however, 
as symbolic of improving relationships, Mr. John Henley, president of the 
North Carolina Association of Independent Colleges and Universities, 
presented to President Friday a resolution signed by all thirty-eight presi- 
dents of the private institutions honoring him for his service to higher 
education. The presentation was made at the regular meeting of the 
Board of Governors on 9 January 1982. 

After the legislature relieved the Board of Governors of the obligation 
to review the requests of the private institutions in 1983, relations became 
more cordial and the per-student annual grant was increased to $850 in 
1984-85 and to $950 in 1985-86. The State Contractual Fund was in- 
creased to $300 per FTE in 1985-86. 

In 1983 the Association of Independent Colleges and Universities 
shifted its campaign for a principle that would guarantee the amount of 
its appropriation from the General Assembly. It had been advocating 
since 1974 what it designated as the 50 percent principle, meaning a per 



[290] The Multicampus University of North Carolina 

capita appropriation for each North Carolina resident enrolled in the pri- 
vate sector in an amount equal to half the average per capita appropriation 
for undergraduates in the baccalaureate institutions of the University of 
North Carolina. The new approach which was designed to keep the tui- 
tion gap from increasing in the years ahead called for an increased appro- 
priation per capita equal to the increased appropriation per capita in the 
previous year for undergraduate students in the baccalaureate institutions 
of the public sector. For example, if those institutions in the public sector 
received an average per capita increase of $400 in 1982, the undergradu- 
ates in the private institutions would recieve an increase in 1983 of the 
same amount. The legislature did not meet this challenge and raised the 
per-student annual grant by $100 in 1984-85 and an additional $100 in 
1985-86. 

The argument over the tuition gap continued unabated in 1986. The 
private institutions claimed that the tuition gap had increased from $1,031 
in 1 97 1 to $2,463 in 1985, after counting the $1,250 per capita that the 
state now appropriated for the Legislative Tuition Grant Program and the 
Contractual Scholarship Fund combined. It was pointed out by those 
who were critics of the state-aid program that the increase in tuition in 
private institutions was close to the increase in family earnings during the 
inflationary period through which the nation had come. Furthermore, it 
was argued that resources for student financial aid between 1972-73 and 
1983-84 in North Carolina private institutions had increased more than 
fivefold from $12,800,000 to $67,000,000. The problem had come to be 
more political than economic. 

Between 1972-73 and 1985-86 the state had appropriated $65,327,000 
for the State Contractual Scholarship Fund, which was aiding over 6,000 
students in the private institutions annually, and between 1975-76 and 
1985-86, $132,515,500 for the Legislative Tuition Grant Program. This 
program was undoubtedly of great assistance to some of the private in- 
stitutions. In 1 971 there were forty-one private colleges and universities 
in North Carolina. Eleven of these were junior colleges. By 1985 there 
were thirty-eight. Two junior colleges had ceased to exist and one had 
joined the community college system. Two of the eight remaining junior 
colleges had become senior institutions, and another had announced 
plans to add a baccalaureate program beginning in 1986. 

Financial difficulties in the private sector probably reached a high point 
in 1975, the year the Legislative Tuition Grant Program was enacted by 
the General Assembly. In 1975 North Carolina Wesleyan College became 
so involved financially that the chairman of the board, Judge J. Philip 
Carlton, appealed to the Board of Governors in a letter dated 1 1 March 
stating that "the only alternative to the permanent closing of the school is 



Relations with Private Institutions [ 2 9 I ] 

a purchase by the State of North Carolina and operation by the State." 
The Board of Governors had the General Administration staff make a 
thorough investigation, and on 1 1 April the Board of Governors declined 
the request. Following the action of the board, the North Carolina Meth- 
odist Conference and the Rocky Mount community where the college is 
located went into action and raised over a million dollars to keep the in- 
stitution open. In the next decade with philanthropic aid and with in- 
creasing assistance from the state support for students enrolled in private 
institutions, North Carolina Wesleyan recovered and by 1985 had paid all 
of its debts and had a surplus of 1.5 million dollars. 

The state aid to students enrolled in private colleges and universities 
did not result in a significant increase of North Carolina undergraduate 
students between 1972-73 and 1985-86. The FTE enrollment on 1 Oc- 
tober in 1972-73 was 22,800 and the enrollment in 1985-86 was 23,193. 
The increase of 393 is small, but the stabilization of enrollment in the 
private sector has contributed significantly to maintaining a dual sys- 
tem with its twin virtues of diversity and freedom of choice in higher 
education. 

The Advisory Committee of Presidents of Private Colleges and Uni- 
versities continued to meet regularly until about 1982. In addition to 
carrying on the discussion of aid to the private sector, the committee was 
kept informed about demographic trends in the state, the relations be- 
tween the university and the Office of Civil Rights, trends in student aid, 
and a variety of other topics. 

In 1976 the president of the university, the president of the community 
college system, and the president of the North Carolina Association of 
Independent Colleges and Universities joined in forming the Liaison 
Committee composed of four members from each group that discussed 
topics of mutual interest and concern to institutions of higher education 
in North Carolina. This group, which met quarterly, was a stabilizing in- 
fluence and brought about more cordial relationships among the various 
types of institutions. It was concerned with the problem of duplication of 
services and programs, which was especially important to the smaller, 
private liberal-arts institutions that found themselves in competition with 
the burgeoning community college system. The group was also con- 
cerned with the data collecting activities of the university, with some as- 
pects of the long-range planning that was under the direction of the 
Board of Governors, and with demographic trends. 

The most cordial cooperation between the Board of Governors and the 
private colleges and universities in North Carolina has been in the field of 
teacher education. One of the longer running joint ventures has been the 
work of the cooperative planning consortium of special education pro- 



[292] The Multicampus University oj North Carolina 

grams which was formed in 1974 at the request of President Friday. It has 
been in operation continuously addressing the problem of producing ade- 
quate professional personnel to serve the educational needs of handicapped 
children in the state. The consortium is made up of fourteen constituent 
institutions of the university and eleven private institutions. There are 
also certain state agencies and consumer groups that work with the 
consortium. 

The most extensive venture has been the Quality Assurance Program. 
This involved forty-four colleges and universities in North Carolina in- 
cluding twenty-nine private four-year institutions and fifteen constituent 
institutions of the university. This venture also involved a high level of 
cooperation between the State Board of Education and the Board of Gov- 
ernors. A close working relationship has been developed with many of 
the private institutions and with the Association of Independent Colleges 
and Universities. In the early stages of the program, the cooperating in- 
stitutions were especially concerned with the initiation of the policies that 
eventually resulted from the Quality Assurance Program agreements. 
The alliance between the public and private sectors continued and is re- 
flected in a close relationship that has developed as they have worked to- 
gether on the task force in the preparation of teachers. 

The development of the Mathematics and Science Education Center 
Network has included some work with the private sector and has resulted 
in a number of consortial arrangements where affiliated centers of the net- 
work, each of which is a constituent institution of the university, are 
working directly with one or more private colleges or universities. An 
example is the close cooperative relationship between Catawba College 
and the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. 

The development of the Title 2 Comprehensive Plan required a close 
planning and working relationship between the university, the public 
schools, and certain private colleges and universities of the state. The in- 
stitutions working most closely with the development of the plan include 
Atlantic Christian College, Catawba College, Duke University, Guilford 
College, St. Augustine's College, and Lenoir-Rhyne College. The Title 2 
Plan is based on federal funds allocated on a formula basis to North Caro- 
lina. The private institutions work with the university to develop a com- 
petitive grants program. In a recent year seven private colleges or univer- 
sities shared in grants through Title 2, administered under the Board of 
Governors. 

There are two consortium-based teacher-education programs in North 
Carolina that involve formal relationships between constituent institu- 
tions of the university and certain private institutions. The Winston- 
Salem Consortium includes Wake Forest University, Salem College, and 



Relations with Private Institutions [ 2 93] 

Winston-Salem State University; the Charlotte Consortium includes the 
University of North Carolina at Charlotte, the University of North 
Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Charlotte-Mecklenburg School System, 
Johnson C. Smith University, Sacred Heart College, and Davidson Col- 
lege. The objective of these consortia is to provide improved pre-service 
teacher education programs and to expand continuing education oppor- 
tunities for teachers in the area. 

The planning and development of the North Carolina Center for the 
Advancement of Teaching has included some cooperative relationships 
with the private sector with the objective of securing access to resources 
from private institutions and utilizing their assistance in providing ser- 
vices for teachers in the private elementary and secondary schools in 
North Carolina. The principal assistance in this venture has come from 
Guilford College. 

The Area Health Education Centers have been discussed in another 
connection. They constitute an important relationship among the four 
medical schools in the state located in the University of North Carolina at 
Chapel Hill, East Carolina University, Wake Forest University, and Duke 
University and the nine Area Health Education Centers that are provid- 
ing advanced and continuing education for health professional personnel. 
The university has worked closely with Duke and Wake Forest to develop 
nursing education programs. In addition, significant programs in the area 
of mental health, prevention of handicapping conditions in children, and 
the provision of health education resources for middle school programs in 
North Carolina have been developed. 

Over the past fourteen years there have been many instances of produc- 
tive cooperation between public and private institutions in North Caro- 
lina, especially when there have been specific tasks to be done and some 
external source of support available to link two or more institutions in 
some worthwhile enterprise. 



CHAPTER 15 

The General Administration, 
1972- 1986 



The Restructuring Act provided that "the merger of an institution into 
The University of North Carolina under this Act shall not impair any 
term of office, appointment or employment of any administrative, in- 
structional or other personnel of the institution." Furthermore, the act 
directed the Board of Governors during the time it was serving as a Plan- 
ning Committee "to prepare a plan for the merging of the staff positions 
of the Board of Higher Education and of the General Administration of 
The University of North Carolina, said plan to become effective July 1, 
1972." The first of these provisions had the effect of guaranteeing each 
person employed in one of the sixteen constituent institutions his or her 
current status. The second apparently assured each member of the staff of 
the Board of Higher Education and of the General Administration of the 
Consolidated University an assignment on the staff of the new organiza- 
tion. These two provisions were checks on the authority of the Board of 
Governors and the president. There probably would have been few 
changes if these provisions had not been enacted; however, they had the 
effect of relieving the thousands of employees of the university of anxiety 
about their employment status. 

The General Administration staff that was approved on 7 July 1972 fol- 
lowed closely the organization of the administration of the Consolidated 
University. This had evolved from a management report prepared by the 
firm of Cresap, McCormick and Paget in 1953 during President Gordon 
Gray's administration. The same firm recommended an organizational 
pattern for the three constituent institutions at that time which came to 
be, with some variations, the pattern that spread to the sixteen constitu- 
ent institutions. 

The General Administration staff was composed of the president and 
the five vice presidents for academic affairs, finance, planning, research 
and public-service programs, and student services and special programs. 
The latter was added to the positions provided in the staff of the Consoli- 

[294] 



The General Administration, 1972-1986 [ 2 95] 

dated University and made it possible to employ a minority person in a 
high-level post. The position of vice president for administration, which 
was vacant, was deleted. Each of the five vice presidents had a staff and a 
definite allocation of duties and responsibilities. In addition, the president 
had four assistants whose duties involved public information; legal af- 
fairs; relations with the Faculty Assembly, private colleges and univer- 
sities and the community college system; and governmental affairs. The 
last was added in September 1973. The position of secretary of the uni- 
versity was also retained. This person was in charge of the clerical and 
administrative duties of the Board of Governors and of relations with the 
local boards of trustees. 

President Friday's administrative style was strictly collegial. He con- 
sulted frequently with the staff, and decisions were made after canvassing 
fully all available information. The advice of those responsible for the 
several areas was always considered. There was a meeting of the principal 
members of the staff, usually on Monday mornings. All official actions 
had to be taken in the name of the president, but he was careful to give 
credit to those who were responsible for assisting him in arriving at and 
carrying out decisions. An index to his collegial style can be found in the 
way he approached all of the persons under his jurisdiction. He never 
spoke of "my staff," "my vice presidents," or "my chancellors." He in- 
variably referred to them as "my colleagues" and treated them as associ- 
ates rather than subordinates. 

President Friday continued the practice he followed under the Consoli- 
dated University of issuing a report to the Board of Governors of the 
chief developments during each year and including with it a report from 
each of the chancellors. The first volume of The President's Report covered 
the year 1972- 1973 and was followed by twelve additional volumes end- 
ing with 1984-85. These are valuable historical documents and contrib- 
ute much to understanding this period. 

The Division of Academic Affairs through the fourteen years was 
under the direction of Vice President Raymond H. Dawson. The restruc- 
turing act provided for "a Senior Vice President." In the early days there 
was some criticism of President Friday for not filling this position. He 
adamantly maintained that it was customary and expected in multicampus 
universities that the second officer in the organization should be the chief 
academic officer. On 13 September 1974 he recommended, and the Board 
of Governors approved, Dr. Dawson as senior vice president. 

In the beginning Vice President Dawson had the following associates: 
from the staff of the Board of Higher Education, Dr. J. Lemuel Stokes II, 
associate vice president, and Dr. John R. Satterfield, assistant vice presi- 
dent; Mr. Robert L. Sigmon and Mr. David B. Edwards from the North 



[296] The Multicampus University oj North Carolina 

Carolina Internship Program; and Mr. Louis T. Parker, director of the 
North Carolina Educational Computing Service, which was located in 
the Research Triangle. Dr. Satterfield resigned in a few months to accept 
another position. The intern program underwent several changes; Mr. 
Edwards, an attorney, became associated with the president's legal as- 
sistant; and Mr. Sigmon went elsewhere. Mr. Parker continued as direc- 
tor of the University of North Carolina Educational Computing Service, 
which is still assigned to Vice President Dawson's office. Associate Vice 
President Stokes reached the age of retirement in 1975. He continued as a 
special assistant in academic affairs and has devoted some time to admin- 
istering Southern Regional Education Board contract programs in medi- 
cine, optometry, and other fields at out-of-state institutions. Dr. Robert 
Williams, professor of history at East Carolina University and dean of 
academic affairs and provost, was appointed associate vice president 
for academic affairs on 8 June 1973. He holds the Ph.D. from Tulane. Dr. 
Williams, among many other duties, has devoted much of his attention to 
improvement of libraries throughout the university and has been in 
charge of university graduate centers at Fayetteville State University and 
Elizabeth City State University. 

Vice President Dawson added Dr. Jeanne Margaret McNally to his staff 
in 1974. She was first named director of the statewide program for con- 
tinuing education for nurses. In 1975 she became assistant vice president 
for academic affairs and in 1978 was promoted to associate vice presi- 
dent for academic affairs. She received her bachelor's, master's, and doc- 
toral degrees from the Catholic University of America. Dr. McNally 
resigned in 1980 when she was elected to her order's highest position, Su- 
perior General of the Sisters of Mercy. She directed several studies of 
nursing and assisted in the reorganization of nursing programs in some of 
the constituent institutions. 

Dr. Donald J. Stedman was appointed special assistant to the vice presi- 
dent for academic affairs on 14 May 1976. On 1 July 1978 he was ad- 
vanced to associate vice president for academic affairs. He received the 
Ph.D. in psychology from George Peabody College and taught at Duke 
University and George Peabody College and was professor of education 
at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. At one time he served 
as associate director of the Joseph P. Kennedy, Jr., Foundation in Washing- 
ton, D.C. Dr. Stedman devoted much of his time to teacher education 
and was responsible for the five reports dealing with the education and 
training of teachers and other educational personnel in the University of 
North Carolina. He was the staff officer responsible for developing the 
quality assurance program. He has been associated with the network of 
Mathematics and Science Education Centers in North Carolina, and he is 



The General Administration, igj2-ig86 [ 2 97] 

the principal staff officer in assisting with the development of the North 
Carolina Center for the Advancement of Education at Western Carolina 
University. In addition, Dr. Stedman is also the principal staff officer to 
the Task Force on the Preparation of Teachers, which was delegated to the 
Board of Governors by the 1985 session of the General Assembly. 

Dr. Arthur H. Padilla, who was a research associate in the office of the 
vice president for planning and a former member of the staff of the Board 
of Higher Education, became assistant to the vice president for academic 
affairs and was later promoted to assistant and associate vice president for 
academic affairs. He has been responsible for a number of studies, among 
them Class of '74: Early Careers of Graduates from the Sixteen Campuses, 
1976; and "Intercollegiate Athletics in The University of North Caro- 
lina," 1985. Dr. Padilla received the B.A. and M.A. degrees from North 
Carolina State University and the Ph.D. in economics from the Univer- 
sity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and was on leave of absence to hold 
a joint appointment as fellow for the Brookings Institute and the United 
States Department of Labor in 1980-81. 

Mr. Robert E. Phay served as special assistant to Vice President 
Dawson from 15 November 1974 to 30 June 1976. He was on leave of ab- 
sence from the Institute of Government in the University of North Caro- 
lina at Chapel Hill. Mr. Phay is a native of Mississippi and a graduate of 
the University of Mississippi and the Yale Law School. At the time, he 
was associate professor of law and government. Mr. Phay was especially 
helpful during the period when the sixteen constituent institutions were 
formulating their tenure regulations. 

Dr. Lloyd Vincent Hackley also served as assistant vice president for 
academic affairs from 1 July 1978 until 1980 when he was promoted to 
associate vice president. He resigned in 1981 to take the position of chan- 
cellor at the University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff. Dr. Hackley holds a 
Ph.D. in political science from the University of North Carolina at 
Chapel Hill. He served in the Air Force in Vietnam and Europe and re- 
tired as a major in 1978. From 1974-78 he was associate professor of 
international relations and political science at the United States Air Force 
Academy. He was especially active in assisting Senior Vice President 
Dawson with studies and negotiations during the controversy with the 
U.S. Office of Civil Rights. 

Dr. Mickey L. Burnim was appointed assistant vice president for aca- 
demic affairs beginning 1 January 1982. He is a native of Texas and 
received the B.A. and M.A. degrees from North Texas State University 
and a Ph.D. from the University of Wisconsin at Madison in economics. 
He held the position of assistant professor of economics at Florida State 
University and spent a postgraduate year at Brookings Institute on an 



[298] The Multicampus University of North Carolina 

economic-policy fellowship in 1980-81. Among his many responsibili- 
ties, Dr. Burnim has devoted time to the evaluation of business programs 
in the university and to the doctoral study assignment program. The 
latter was initiated in 1979 for the purpose of increasing the proportion of 
faculty holding doctorates, especially in the traditionally black institu- 
tions. From 1970-80 through 1985-86, there have been 122 members of 
the faculty, 109 of whom are black, who have received study assignments 
to take graduate work toward a doctoral degree. Forty-nine of the 109 
have completed the degree, and others are in various stages of graduate 
study. 

The vice president for academic affairs, as was pointed out in another 
chapter, has been responsible for academic personnel, for all academic 
programs in the university, and for much of the work in connection with 
the controversy with HEW and OCR. The latter involved at least four- 
teen studies and reports. He also prepared a long report on private higher 
education in North Carolina in 1975. Under his direction, members of his 
staff made evaluation studies of the health professions at both the bac- 
calaureate and graduate levels, engineering, nursing education, home 
economics, the education and training of teachers, criminal justice and 
public service programs, and business education. In addition, an exten- 
sive academic program inventory of the sixteen constituent institutions 
was completed in 1974 and revised in 1978. This was followed by an aca- 
demic program inventory of private senior colleges and universities in 
North Carolina in May 1979. 

Vice President Dawson is advised by a number of groups that represent 
faculties of the sixteen constituent institutions. Among these are: the 
University Graduate Council, which had its origin under the Consoli- 
dated University; the University Library Council; the Council of Chief 
Academic Officers; and others. 

Vice President Dawson also has participated regularly in the prepara- 
tion of the university budget and in the recommendation of the allocation 
of funds appropriated to the university for distribution by the Board of 
Governors. As the senior vice president, he has acted for the president 
when necessary. His facile pen and lucid explanations have been indis- 
pensable in establishing and maintaining the integrity of the university 
over the last fourteen years. 

Vice President Joy ner came to his position from the Consolidated Uni- 
versity with a staff that included Assistant Vice President and Treasurer 
J. Sibley Dorton; Assistant Vice President Kennis R. Grogan, who was 
later promoted to associate vice president in 1976; and Assistant Vice 
President A. P. Winfrey. The Board of Higher Education contributed As- 
sistant Vice President Hugh Buchanan, who was promoted to associate 
vice president in 1976. Mr. Shepard retired in July 1974 after forty-one 



The General Administration, igj2-igS6 [299] 

years of devoted service. Mrs. Ellen Hogan Kepley was appointed budget 
officer in January 1974, promoted to assistant vice president in 1976, and 
to associate vice president in 1983. Mrs. Kepley joined the General Ad- 
ministration staff following twenty years in the Budget Office of the Uni- 
versity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Dr. Leon Martin Ennis was ap- 
pointed finance officer on 11 May 1975, and was promoted to assistant 
vice president in 1984. Dr. Ennis received his Ph.D. from the University 
of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. 

The staff in the Division of Finance has remained very stable. Mr. 
Robert G. B. Bourne served as property officer on a part-time basis for 
five years beginning in July 1973, and Mr. Allen S. Waters was appointed 
property officer in November 1976 and later promoted to assistant vice 
president. Mr. Waters is a native of Missouri, a graduate of the United 
States Naval Academy and Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, and served 
for twenty years in the U.S. Navy Engineering Corps. He was named di- 
rector of construction and engineering at the University of North Caro- 
lina at Chapel Hill in 1965. 

Mr. Bryant Deaton joined the staff as assistant vice president for fi- 
nance in 1983. He was assigned to North Carolina Agricultural and Tech- 
nical University where he was of great service to the university in bring- 
ing order into the financial records of that institution. As soon as his 
mission was accomplished, he resigned to accept other employment and 
was replaced by Mr. Jeffrey R. Davies from the staff of the Administrative 
Data Processing Center of the University of North Carolina at Chapel 
Hill. Mr. Davies is advising institutions concerning the installation of a 
new accounting system. 

Another change in the Division of Finance occurred when Mr. Milton 
H. Gupton, a member of the staff of the State Commission on Higher 
Education Facilities, which was assigned to the university at the time of 
restructuring, was transferred to the division as services officer in 1973. 
He, with the able assistance of Mrs. Marilyn F. Heatherley, Mr. Eugene C. 
Drogos, and others, has been in charge of the in-house business of the 
General Administration. 

The Division of Finance has responsibility for the preparation of the 
university budget and administration of appropriations under policies set 
by the Board of Governors. In addition, it has assisted some of the con- 
stituent institutions in the organization of their business affairs offices, 
and it has kept up with the extensive building program of the university. 
Over the past fourteen years, it has prepared eight university budgets for 
presentation to the Board of Governors and the Advisory Budget Com- 
mission. Vice President Joyner's knowledge of public finance has been of 
great value to the university during this period. 

The Planning Division in 1972 was headed by Vice President Cameron 



[300] The Multicampus University of North Carolina 

P. West. His entire staff came from the Board of Higher Education. Dr. 
West was a native of North Carolina and had received his bachelor's, mas- 
ter's, and doctoral degrees from the University of North Carolina at 
Chapel Hill. He had been a public school administrator for a number of 
years, then joined the staff of Pfeiffer College in 1956, where he advanced 
to the position of academic dean. He became assistant director of the 
Board of Higher Education in 1966 and director in 1968. 

Dr. John B. Davis, who had been professor of mathematics at East 
Carolina University, was assistant vice president for planning with the re- 
sponsibility for institutional research and data collection. He was pro- 
moted to associate vice president in 1976. Dr. Davis was instrumental in 
setting up the statistical services and data collection operation of the Gen- 
eral Administration. He retired because of poor health and died early in 
1979. Mr. Allen J. Barwick, who also came from the Board of Higher 
Education, acted as coordinator of institutional studies. He stayed a short 
time only and moved to a position in Raleigh. Mrs. Linda F. Balfour was 
designated statistical analyst and was given responsibility for editing the 
annual issue of the Statistical Abstract of Higher Education in North Carolina. 
By 1985 she had collected the information for and edited thirteen issues 
of this valuable publication. Another member of the staff of the Board of 
Higher Education who accompanied Dr. West was Mrs. Hilda A. High- 
fill. During her short tenure she did some of the work on the first docu- 
ment filed by the General Administration with the Office for Civil Rights 
in June 1973, entitled "A State Program to Enlarge Educational Oppor- 
tunity in North Carolina." 

Dr. West resigned his position on 1 June 1973 to accept a position as 
executive director of higher education for the state of Illinois. 

On 14 September 1973 Mr. John L. Sanders, who received his bache- 
lor's and law degrees from the University of North Carolina at Chapel 
Hill and was director of the Institute of Government at Chapel Hill, was 
elected vice president for planning. He had served as executive secretary 
of the Governor's Commission on Education Beyond the High School 
and was among the most respected educational administrators in the 
state. He was joined in April 1975 by Dr. Charles Ray Coble, Jr., as asso- 
ciate vice president for planning. Dr. Coble had received the doctorate in 
political science at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and 
was a competent research scholar and statistical analyst. Mr. Sanders 
served for only five years and resigned in December 1978. During that 
time, however, he edited three issues of Long-Range Planning and laid the 
foundation for the planning activities for the university. In addition, he 
made several notable studies; among them, investigations of the need for 
an additional law school in North Carolina and of the need for veterinary 



The General Administration, 1972-1986 [3 01 ] 

education. Unfortunately, Dr. Coble died less than a month after Mr. 
Sanders resigned, leaving the division without leadership. 

President Friday named Dr. Roy Carroll, a native of Arkansas and 
chairman of the department of history at Appalachian State University, as 
acting vice president beginning 12 January 1979. Dr. Carroll received the 
A.B. degree from Ouachita Baptist University. He served in Japan and 
Korea as an infantry officer in the United States Army. He was awarded 
the M.A. and Ph.D. degrees in history from Vanderbilt University and 
was a Fulbright scholar at the University of Leeds in England. Prior to a 
decade of service at Appalachian State University, he had taught four 
years at Armstrong State College in Savannah, Georgia, and six years at 
Mercer University. Dr. Carroll had served as secretary of the Faculty As- 
sembly of the University of North Carolina. At the time of his appoint- 
ment, he was in his first year as elected chairman of the assembly. A na- 
tional search was made to fill the position, and on 11 May 1979 Dr. 
Carroll was elected vice president for planning by the Board of Gover- 
nors. He continued to serve with distinction in that position and pro- 
duced three more editions of the long-range plan. He was joined by Dr. 
Gary T. Barnes as assistant vice president for planning on 1 July 1980. Dr. 
Barnes became associate vice president on 1 July 198 1. At the time of his 
appointment, he was assistant professor of economics in the University of 
North Carolina at Greensboro. He received his Ph.D. from North Caro- 
lina State University and had wide experience in research. He is giving 
able direction to supplying the needs of the General Administration and 
the Board of Governors for a wide range of data. He was instrumental 
also in improving utilization of computer facilities and speeding up elec- 
tronic data processing. 

Vice President Carroll is assisted by Mr. E. Bruce Sigmon, Jr., as- 
sistant vice president for planning, who was added to the staff during Mr. 
Sanders' administration, and recently Dr. John F. Corey, who was associ- 
ated with the Student Services and Special Programs Division for thir- 
teen years, has joined the staff of the Planning Division as associate vice 
president. 

The Research and Public Service Division came into the restructured 
General Administration as it had been organized under the Consolidated 
University. Dr. Herman Brooks James was vice president of the division. 
He reorganized it and gave stability to a function of the university that 
had received only intermittent attention over the years. Dr. James suc- 
ceeded Dr. Charles E. Bishop, the person who had most recently pre- 
sided over the division. It was a great loss when Vice President James, 
who had been critically ill for six months, died on 24 March 1973. His 
counsel was greatly needed during the next decade. 



[302] The Multicampus University of North Carolina 

Dr. E. Walton Jones, professor of economics at North Carolina State 
University, was appointed associate vice president for research and public 
service programs on 15 January 1973. He was a native of South Carolina 
and held the B.S. and M.S. degrees from Clemson University. He re- 
ceived a Ph.D. from North Carolina State University in 1962. Dr. Jones 
had advanced from research assistant at North Carolina State University 
to administrative dean for university extension and public service. At 
various times he had been an economic adviser to the governor of North 
Carolina, and he had served a term as executive director of the Coastal 
Plains Regional Committee. 

After the death of Vice President James, the Division of Research and 
Public Service Programs was merged with the Division of Academic Af- 
fairs for three years. Dr. Jones and Mr. Charles L. Wheeler made a study 
entitled "Review and Analysis of Sponsored Research at The University 
of North Carolina" in 1975. On 8 October 1976 Dr. Jones was elected 
and promoted to vice president for research and public service programs. 
He continued in this position until 1985; however, much of his time dur- 
ing the first two years was devoted to advising Governor Hunt, and he 
eventually received a leave of absence from the General Administration 
and from 13 October 1978 to 13 November 1980 was special adviser to 
Governor Hunt and deputy secretary to the North Carolina Department 
of Natural Resources and Community Development. During part of the 
period of his leave of absence, Dr. Donald J. Stedman was acting vice 
president. Dr. Stedman devoted considerable attention to extension and 
continuing education, which had not received the emphasis that many 
thought should have been placed on this area. He succeeded in designing 
a system that made it possible to keep up with the various extension pro- 
grams and to avoid unwarranted duplication and competition. 

After Dr. Jones returned from his leave of absence, he continued to give 
emphasis to the Annual Urban Affairs Conference of the University of 
North Carolina and edited several volumes of its proceedings. He also 
promoted the interinstitutional institutes and centers that were respon- 
sible for such enterprises as water resources and marine science. 

Mr. Charles L. Wheeler, who was director of the North Carolina State 
Commission on Higher Education Facilities at the time of restructuring, 
came to the General Administration as a member of the staff of the Divi- 
sion of Finance. He subsequently transferred to the staff of the Division 
of Research and Public Service Programs; however, he continued his ac- 
tivities with the Commission on Higher Education Facilities, and with 
the assistance of Mr. William H. Gilmore, inventory project supervisor, 
published ten editions of the facilities inventory and utilization studies 
between August 1976 and October 1985. The 1985 edition of the in- 



The General Administration, ig72-ig86 [303] 

ventory revealed that the University of North Carolina and its constituent 
institutions had a total of 1,191 buildings with a total area of 36,502,000 
square feet. The total replacement value of the buildings, not including 
the equipment contained in them, was estimated to be $2,692,173,000. 

Mr. R. L. Hardison, former director of purchasing for the University 
of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and presently a consultant for the Divi- 
sion of Finance, made a study of the total value of movable equipment 
and library books in the buildings on the campuses of the sixteen con- 
stituent institutions in May 1986. The study indicated the total value of 
this equipment to be approximately $608,930,000. 

Mr. Allen R. Rodeheffer also came to the Division of Research and 
Public Service from the Board of Higher Education. He was the Director 
of Title 1 Programs and continued in that capacity until his retirement in 
1979. He completed in August 1977 a study of "North Carolina's Com- 
munity Service and Continuing Education Program under Title I of the 
Higher Education Act of 1976: 1966-77." 

Dr. George E. Bair, Director of University of North Carolina Tele- 
vision, and the staff of that organization were originally assigned to the 
Division of Research and Public Service Programs; however, after the 
death of Vice President James, Dr. Baer reported directly to President 
Friday. 

When Vice President Jones resigned in 1985, Dr. Jasper D. Memory, 
Vice Provost and Dean of the Graduate School at North Carolina State 
University, was appointed Acting Vice President for Research and Public 
Service Programs, effective September 1. In this position, he was respon- 
sible for the university's sponsored research projects and for directing the 
university's interinstitutional programs which include Marine Sciences, 
Urban Affairs, Environmental Studies and others. Dr. Memory received 
the B.S. degree from Wake Forest University and his doctorate in physics 
from The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He is a well- 
known research scientist in the field of molecular and solid state physics. 
After a search for a permanent appointee for this position, Dr. Memory 
was elected to the post by the Board of Governors in May 1986. 

A study by Vice President Memory, Research in the UNC System Cover- 
ing the Period igy/-ig8y. A Preliminary Report, February 1986, showed that 
the amount of research funds that has come to the University of North 
Carolina has increased from about $40 million annually in 1978 to over 
$106 million in 1985. Most of this money goes to the two research uni- 
versities. In 1985, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill re- 
ceived approximately $60 million, and North Carolina State University 
received $35 million. The sources of research grant funding in 1985 were 
approximately as follows: $80 million from the federal government, $10 



[304] The Multicampus University of North Carolina 

million from industry, $5 million each from the state government and pri- 
vate foundations, and the remainder from other sources. 

The new Division of Student Services and Special Programs autho- 
rized in 1972 was headed by Vice President Harold Delaney. Dr. John F. 
Corey, who had been a member of the staff of the Board of Higher Edu- 
cation, was named assistant vice president in that division. 

Mr. Stan C. Broadway, director of the State Education Assistance Au- 
thority, was attached to the division with his staff. The Board of Higher 
Education had been obligated to provide the executive director for the 
authority, which coordinated student-assistance programs for North 
Carolina under a board appointed by the governor. The General Admin- 
istration assumed that obligation, and Mr. Broadway and his colleagues 
began a connection with the General Administration, reporting through 
the vice president for student affairs and special programs. 

Mr. Broadway has maintained close liaison with The College Founda- 
tion, Inc., a nonprofit organization for the purpose of providing financial 
assistance to college students. It has administered a number of programs 
over the last thirty years, and it is the central lender for the North Caro- 
lina Education Assistance Authority. During 1984-85, the foundation 
made available $51.9 million in educational loans to students enrolled in 
North Carolina colleges and universities, and, over the years, it has made 
educational loans totaling $293.5 million. There have been unfavorable 
reports in the news media concerning the repayment of student loans. 
The fact is that when viewed in the long run, over 95 percent of the stu- 
dents who obtain educational loans repay them. The troublesome, less 
than 5 percent receive most of the national publicity. 

When Vice President Delaney resigned in July 1974, the position was 
vacant until April 1975 when Mr. Cleon F. Thompson, Jr., was ap- 
pointed acting vice president for student services and special programs. 
He was a candidate for the doctoral degree at Duke University, which he 
completed soon after his appointment. He had earned the bachelor's and 
master's degrees at North Carolina Central University, and he had taught 
at North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University and Tus- 
kegee Institute and was vice president for academic affairs at Shaw Uni- 
versity. For a period, he was senior research assistant in the University of 
North Carolina School of Medicine. Dr. Thompson was appointed vice 
president on 1 March 1976 after a national search, and continued in that 
position except for the period 1 November 1980 through 12 June 1981, 
when he was serving as acting chancellor of North Carolina Agricultural 
and Technical State University. During this period Dr. Nathan Simms 
served as acting vice president. He was Reynolds Professor at Winston- 
Salem State University. Dr. Thompson returned to his position and con- 



The General Administration, igy2-ig86 [3°5] 

tinued until he was elected Chancellor of Winston-Salem State University 
in 1985. He took a leading role during the dispute with the Office of Civil 
Rights and was especially helpful to President Friday in interpreting the 
university to the chancellors of the traditionally black constituent institu- 
tions and to the black community in general. Vice President Thompson 
also served as an effective liaison between President Friday and the stu- 
dent body presidents of the sixteen constituent institutions. 

Assistant Vice President Corey, who was later promoted to associ- 
ate vice president, helped Vice Presidents Delaney and Thompson in 
many ways. He was skilled in drafting letters, speeches and other docu- 
ments. Dr. Corey also was responsible for the staff work in connection 
with the licensing of collegiate institutions, principally proprietary col- 
leges and private colleges from outside North Carolina which applied to 
offer extension-type courses within the boundaries of North Carolina. 
He prepared several editions of Rules and Standards for Licensing Non-Public 
Institutions to Confer Degrees, the last edition of which was entitled, Rules 
and Standards: Licensing Non-Public Institutions to Conduct Postsecondary De- 
gree Activity in North Carolina. He made arrangements for inspection 
committees to examine institutions and prepared reports of committee 
findings for the Board of Governors. Another duty of Dr. Corey was to 
serve as staff officer to the Joint Committee on College Transfer Students. 
He assisted in editing five editions of their recommended Policies of Senior 
Colleges and Universities Concerning Transfer Students from Two-Year Colleges 
in North Carolina and several editions of the committee's Guidelines for 
Transfer. He also performed other editorial services for the various pub- 
lications that were circulated in carrying out the provisions in the consent 
decree, North Carolina v. Department of Education. 

When Dr. Thompson resigned to become chancellor at Winston-Salem 
State University, a search was made to fill his position, and Dr. Lloyd V 
Hackley was persuaded to return from his position as chancellor of the 
University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff to assume the position, vice chancel- 
lor for student services and special programs, effective 1 October 1985. 
The resignation of Dr. Paul Marion to become director of the Arkansas 
Board of Higher Education and the transfer of Dr. Corey to the Division 
of Planning left two vacancies in the Division of Student Services and 
Special Programs. One of these was filled by Dr. George Antonelli, who 
received his Ph.D. from Southern Illinois University. Dr. Antonelli was 
named associate vice president for student services and special programs. 
He was previously dean of the Division of Education at the University of 
Arkansas at Pine Bluff and before that a member of the College of Educa- 
tion faculty at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. The other 
vacancy was filled by Dr. Barbara Mann, who was appointed assistant 



[306] The Multicampus University of North Carolina 

vice president for student services and special programs. She holds a 
Ph.D. from Florida State University and was formerly dean of student 
development at Western Carolina University. 

Three of the assistants to the president came from the staff of the Con- 
solidated University. Mr. Jay (James L., Jr.) Jenkins, who was in charge 
of public relations until he retired on 1 July 1982, was especially talented 
in writing and introduced the Board of Governor's Newsletter in 1977. 
It had been needed and suggested by many people and was successful 
in bringing information about the university to a wide audience. Mr. 
Richard H. Robinson, the legal assistant, soon found it necessary to ob- 
tain assistance because of the increasingly litigious environment into 
which higher education was suddenly thrust. In addition to Mr. David B. 
Edwards, Jr., who has already been mentioned, Mr. Jeffrey H. Orleans, a 
graduate of Yale University, was appointed special assistant in September 
1975 and remained with the university until after the consent decree set- 
tling the dispute with OCR was issued. Ms. Elizabeth C. Bunting, a for- 
mer assistant attorney general for North Carolina, was added to the staff 
on 1 November 1984. Dr. A. K. King, who retired as vice president for 
institutional studies in the Consolidated University, remained on a part- 
time basis and was responsible for relations with the Faculty Assembly, 
private colleges, and community colleges, and for special assignments. 

In September 1973, Mr. R. D. McMillan, Jr., was appointed assistant 
to the president for governmental affairs. He was a graduate of the univer- 
sity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, a naval officer in World War II, a 
former mayor of Red Springs, and a long-time representative from 
Robeson, Scotland, and Hoke Counties. In 1969 he was named state pur- 
chasing officer. He had also been a trustee of the Consolidated Univer- 
sity. This was a particularly fortunate appointment. Mr. McMillan was 
not the usual lobbyist type. He was a legislative representative in the best 
sense of the term and could always be counted on to give a true represen- 
tation of the university to the legislature and of the legislature to the uni- 
versity. The goodwill that he generated for the university was an impor- 
tant factor in its success over the next thirteen years. 

After Mr. Jenkins retired, Mrs. Trudy Atkins was added to the staff, 
effective 1 September 1983, on an acting basis. She has performed her 
duties with much vitality and innovation. Mrs. Atkins revived the News- 
letter and converted it to a quarterly which was especially useful in keep- 
ing the Board of Governors, the news media, and others informed about 
university affairs. 

From time to time President Friday had special assistance for tempo- 
rary assignments. Among these was Mr. Claude E. Caldwell who was 
associated with the university for two years beginning in September 



The General Administration, 1972-1986 [3°7] 

1974. He made a thorough study of EPA-SPA classifications, which was 
later used to formulate policies for employees exempt from the Person- 
nel Act. 

One of the administrative problems that confronted the President and 
the Board of Governors was the continued expansion of the UNC-TV 
network after 1972. 

Remote color equipment was first used in 1973 to present live coverage 
of the General Assembly. Regular coverage of the General Assembly be- 
gan the following year, using special equipment assigned to the Legis- 
lative Building. In 1974, color cameras were installed in the studios at 
Chapel Hill and Raleigh, making an all-color schedule possible there- 
after. 

The system began to build a series of translators designed to pick up 
signals from transmitting stations and project them into problem areas in 
1974. The first translators served the Tryon and Saluda areas. By 198 1 a 
dozen translators were in operation in the mountain areas; however, these 
did not satisfy all of those who wanted to receive public television. 

The Public Broadcasting Financing Act of 1975 and the Public Tele- 
communications Financing Act of 1978 renewed and broadened the fed- 
eral commitment to support public radio and television. In the spring of 
1977 the budget of UNC-TV was $100,000 less than was needed. At that 
time, 80 percent of the $2,300,000 budget came from the General Assem- 
bly and the rest from federal funds. To raise the needed $100,000, the net- 
work made its first appeal to its viewers for money. 

In 1977 the Select Committee of the North Carolina House of Repre- 
sentatives, chaired by Mr. Liston Ramsey, recommended appropriations 
for another expansion of transmission facilities. In the Phase 3 expansion, 
Channel 19 at Jacksonville was the first to be activated. 

All of this growth at UNC-TV made the old organization system ar- 
chaic and unworkable. With eight stations and three production studios 
in the mid~70s "the Network is a case study in decentralization" according 
to one news analyst. The network had to compete for control with its 
studios, which were answerable to their own campuses and not to UNC- 
TV. The result was much dissension among the campuses and studios. 
The situation developed to the point where, in 1977, legislation was in- 
troduced calling for a study directed toward the complete removal of the 
network from the university. President Friday and others succeeded in 
blocking the bill and some improvements began. 

In 1978 Governor Hunt appointed a study commission to look into the 
problem. The North Carolina Task Force on Public Telecommunications, 
chaired by Mr. Herbert Hyde, recommended in April 1979 a sweeping 
reorganization of public television in North Carolina. 



[308] The Multicampus University of North Carolina 

President Friday was a member of the Hyde Task Force and had suc- 
ceeded in influencing the recommendations that were focused on two new 
agencies. First, the General Assembly authorized the establishment of a 
North Carolina Agency for Public Telecommunications, which did not 
include television. Second, it also authorized the University of North 
Carolina Center for Public Television. As was mentioned earlier, on 17 
April 1980 the Committee on University Governance of the Board of 
Governors proposed a resolution officially activating the center effective 
1 May. This included activating the Board of Trustees for the center, 
which had been stipulated in the act passed by the General Assembly. The 
Board of Governors had already appointed eleven members of the Board 
of Trustees, and other agencies had appointed their share. According to 
the resolution which was later incorporated into the by-laws of the trust- 
ees, "the Board of Trustees shall promote the sound development of The 
University of North Carolina Center for Public Television, helping it to 
serve the people of the State and aiding it to perform at a higher level of 
excellence in every area of endeavor." 

On 11 January 1980 Mr. John W. Dunlop, director of the Vermont 
Educational Television Network since 1970, was elected director of the 
center by the Board of Governors. He is a native of New Jersey and a 
graduate of Auburn. Dr. George E. Bair, who had been director of 
UNC-Television, became assistant to the president for university tele- 
communications. Dr. Bair later became assistant to the chancellor of the 
University of North Carolina at Wilmington. 

The members of the Board of Trustees for the center became active, 
and the center was reorganized by the consolidation of its work into the 
following four divisions: administration, programming, development, 
and engineering. The center was housed in the new annex to the General 
Administration Building; however, it set about planning for its own 
headquarters. The General Assembly of 1985 appropriated $7,500,000 for 
the building, which will be located in the Research Triangle Park. Mr. 
Joseph M. Bryan made a gift of $1 million to fund equipment for the new 
building. 

President Friday wanted an agency of the faculty from which he could 
obtain advice. During the period of the Consolidated University, the Fac- 
ulty Advisory Council had evolved from the six constituent institutions. 
He suggested to that council in April 1972, shortly after his election as 
president, that steps be taken to organize an advisory council from the 
sixteen constituent institutions. Delegates from all of the institutions 
gathered at North Carolina Agricultural and Technical University in 
Greensboro on 14 and 15 April. In a cooperative spirit, the delegates drew 
up a charter to be submitted to each of the institutions, which created a 



The General Administration, 1972-1986 [309] 

Faculty Assembly of over forty members. It was proposed that the body 
be made up of elected faculty representatives, who would assemble four 
times during the academic year under their own elected officials and sub- 
ject to their own by-laws, to consider matters of university-wide concern. 
Their recommendations were to be transmitted to the president on sub- 
jects that he presented to them for advice or that they chose to present 
to him. 

In November 1972 the charter had been ratified by all sixteen institu- 
tions. Mr. John L. Sanders, who served as interim chairman at the meet- 
ing in Greensboro, called the group together in the General Administra- 
tion Building on 2 December to organize. They agreed to a second 
meeting on 6 January 1973, at which Professor Henry C. Cooke of the 
Department of Mathematics, North Carolina State University, was elected 
the first chairman. He served until April 1974. During his administra- 
tion, the Faculty Assembly advised the president and the Board of Gover- 
nors on the completion of the Code. It also expressed interest in represen- 
tation on the local boards of trustees. It established six committees that 
were concerned with academic freedom and tenure, the university bud- 
get, faculty welfare, university governance, university planning and pro- 
grams, and professional development. 

In 1974 Dr. Henry Ferrell, professor of history at East Carolina Uni- 
versity, was elected chairman. During his administration, many improve- 
ments were made in the Code, especially the addition of a grievance 
procedure. 

In April 1976 Dr. Vincent M. Foote, professor of product design at 
North Carolina State University, was elected chairman. During his ad- 
ministration, there was much discussion of the principle of merit raises 
contrasted with across-the-board raises for faculty. There was an attempt 
to reapportion the representation of the assembly, but it failed. 

In April 1977 Dr. Roy Carroll, professor of history and chairman of the 
department at Appalachian State University, was elected chairman. Dur- 
ing his term there was some discussion of the improvement of teacher 
training in English, the workload of faculty, and faculty development. 
Dr. Carroll was elected vice president for planning, and Dr. Helen M. 
Caldwell, professor of speech pathology at Elizabeth City State Univer- 
sity, served until April 1979 when Dr. Shirley Browning, professor of 
economics at the University of North Carolina at Asheville, was elected 
chairman. 

Dr. Browning was followed by Dr. Alan Hauser, professor of philoso- 
phy at Appalachian State University, who served for three years. During 
his administration there were resolutions criticizing the new health cover- 
age plan and resolutions on the Board of Governors' policy concerning 



[310] The Multicampus University oj North Carolina 

the election of members of the university staff to the General Assembly 
and other political offices. There was also a suggestion that arbitration 
procedures be used to settle grievances, which was not received favorably 
by President Friday. In April 1984 Dr. James LeRoy Smith, professor of 
philosophy at East Carolina University, was elected chairman. During his 
administration the faculty was concerned especially with the procedure 
for the election of a new university president, and he and three of his col- 
leagues were appointed by Chairman Philip G. Carson of the Board of 
Governors to serve on the Advisory Committee to the Search Committee 
for a president. 

Over the years, President Friday and the Vice Presidents met regularly 
with one plenary session of the Faculty Assembly each time it came to- 
gether. Members of the staff also met with committees of the Faculty As- 
sembly. Dr. King represented the president on the executive committee 
of the assembly and was the liaison person between the president and the 
assembly from 1972 to 1986. This has been an effective agency for bring- 
ing the General Administration and the Board of Governors into commu- 
nication with the sixteen faculties. 

The assembly has emphasized frequently the unfavorable gap between 
real wages and the Consumer Price Index, as the latter has increased since 
1967 from a base index of 100 to 328 in 1986. Since 1972, when the index 
stood at 125.3, the average salary for a full professor at the University of 
North Carolina at Chapel Hill, for example, has increased from $25,200 
to $50,700. The average salary of a full professor at North Carolina Cen- 
tral University during the same period has increased from $18,800 to 
$40,000. These figures illustrate points that the Committee on Faculty 
Welfare has stressed from time to time. 

The chairman of the Faculty Assembly regularly attended meetings of 
the Board of Governors and made a report to the Faculty Assembly. Each 
delegation to the Faculty Assembly made a report of the proceedings to 
the faculty that it represented. The affairs of the Faculty Assembly and its 
relationships with the president were conducted in the best parliamentary 
style and without any suggestion of confrontation. 



CHAPTER 16 



The Chancellors, 1972—1986 



The Administrative Council was another advisory group that President 
Friday used throughout his administration. It was first suggested in the 
Cresap, McCormick and Paget management report in 1953. Throughout 
the period of the Consolidated University, it was composed of the chan- 
cellors, business managers, and senior staff. It met regularly, and all prob- 
lems, issues, and matters of general interest to the university were ex- 
plored by the group. 

President Friday called a meeting of the chancellors shortly before 1 
July 1972. The group was so large that he omitted the chief financial offi- 
cers. The Advisory Council, composed of the sixteen chancellors and the 
senior staff in the General Administration Office, usually convened on the 
fourth Tuesday of every month (except August) for a session that seldom 
ran over two hours. The first few gatherings of this group were interest- 
ing studies in bewilderment. Six of the chancellors and all of the vice 
presidents were well acquainted with the way the council operated and 
with President Friday's collegial style. The other ten had no experience 
with a multicampus university. They had been accustomed to running 
their own institutions in accordance with a variety of practices and proce- 
dures. They found it difficult to engage in a discussion, the purpose of 
which was to consider the problems of a large organization made up of 
sixteen campuses. Some of the chancellors could not identify readily with 
institutions that differed markedly from their own. Furthermore, some of 
the chancellors were not even acquainted with their colleagues. It was not 
many months, however, before they realized that the Administrative 
Council existed for a constructive purpose, and tensions and suspicions 
slowly relaxed. As the Code was completed, they gradually accepted the 
new environment in which they found themselves. 

The preparation of the first budget and the realization that they would 
be consulted on it and other matters of general concern made the body an 
increasingly valuable group for advisory purposes. It took no votes and 
enacted no legislation, but on important issues it usually arrived at a 
consensus. 

[311] 



[312] The Multicampus University of North Carolina 

Only two of the original chancellors were still members of the council 
at the end of fourteen years. Chancellor William H. Wagoner of Wilming- 
ton had seen his institution grow from 2,280 students in 1972 to 5,777 in 
1985, and he had witnessed the growth of a beautiful new campus, as the 
University of Wilmington emerged as a Comprehensive University I in- 
stitution. His colleagues respected him as the senior chancellor. 

Chancellor Charles "A" Lyons, Jr., of Fayetteville State University, was 
the other member of the original group still remaining in 1985. He had 
seen his institution grow less rapidly from 1,643 m *97 2 to 2,957 m !9$5; 
however, the Fayetteville State campus had also undergone a transforma- 
tion to Comprehensive University I status, and Chancellor Lyons could 
state with pride that his institution was the second oldest among the six- 
teen. In addition, he became a recognized leader among the heads of the 
traditionally black institutions of the nation. 

Changes started occurring among the chancellors as early as 1973. The 
first one was perhaps the most painful, and this may have been influenced 
by the newness of the system. Western Carolina University, like all other 
institutions in the university, had experienced many changes as a result of 
legislative actions expanding and restructuring higher education. Its stu- 
dent body and its faculty had grown rapidly in the 1960s. It faced these 
changes by 1972 in a virtual vacuum of effective leadership. Long-time 
president, Paul A. Reid, retired shortly after the 1967 action that moved 
Western Carolina and three other senior colleges to regional university 
status. The new president, Dr. Alex S. Pow, suffered a disabling stroke 
the day after the General Assembly restructured higher education in Oc- 
tober 1 97 1. Mr. Frank H. Brown, Jr., the administrative vice president, 
served as acting president until June 1972, when Dr. Jack K. Carlton was 
named president. In July, Dr. Carlton became chancellor. The Board of 
Trustees of the institution had done him a disservice by rushing to elect 
him in June before the Board of Governors could assume authority. He 
was a native of Texas, held a B.S. degree from Centenary College, and 
the M.S. and Ph.D. in Chemistry from Louisiana State University. He 
had taught at the University of Arkansas, Georgia Tech, and Louisiana 
State University, and he had been dean of the Louisiana State University 
campus at New Orleans. Prior to his position at Western Carolina Uni- 
versity, Dr. Carlton was president of Macon (Ga.) Junior College from 
1967- 1972. He had been the president of the small junior college from its 
inception. When he arrived at Western Carolina University, he was with- 
out any knowledge of the institution and without any acquaintances. Fur- 
thermore, he came to a university system that was in the early stage of its 
organization. The saga of his experience at Western Carolina is too long 
and involved to relate here. 

Chancellor Carlton was confronted by a faculty composed of new- 



The Chancellors, igj 2- ig86 [313] 

comers and old, established comrades. He was resented by the latter be- 
cause his coming had disturbed the plans of those who expected to take 
over the administration of the university. He was resented by the new- 
comers because of a decision respecting tenure and other administrative 
decisions that they considered threatening. Before long, the Board of 
Trustees of the institution received a petition signed by sixty-six tenured 
members of the faculty which noted that "a recent series of events during 
the administration of Dr. Carlton has convinced many experienced pro- 
fessors and administrators that his philosophy of administration and its 
application are incompatible with the traditions and welfare of this Uni- 
versity." They asked the Board of Trustees to conduct a full investigation. 

President Friday, acting under the Code, assumed jurisdiction and sent 
a delegation on two occasions to the campus to try to improve the situa- 
tion. He sent one member of his staff to spend two weeks as a consultant 
to the faculty in revising the institution's faculty governance instrument 
with the hope that this might help stabilize the volatile situation. When it 
failed to improve, the chairman of the Board of Trustees with the ap- 
proval of Chancellor Carlton asked for representatives of the Board of 
Governors and the president "to meet with the Trustees, Chancellor, fac- 
ulty and staff of Western Carolina University to discuss the current situa- 
tion." President Friday passed the request along to the Board of Gover- 
nors. It authorized a Special Committee of Inquiry composed of Mr. 
William A. Johnson, chairman, Mrs. Virginia Lathrop, and Mr. Hugh 
Cannon. 

In its report, the committee noted that Chancellor Carlton did not re- 
act sensitively to the insecurities and instabilities at Western Carolina 
University and that he "frequently manifested a bluntness in directness of 
manner and speech which was interpreted, variously, as either, at best, a 
very forthright, no nonsense approach or, at worse, a callous insensitivity 
to the feelings of some members of the academic community." The com- 
mittee did not find the academic community entirely blameless. 

It was specifically recommended by the committee "that the tendered 
resignation of the Chancellor be accepted, with regrets about the dynam- 
ics which have compelled this conclusion and with the genuine under- 
standing of the severe difficulties which he faced during his tenure." They 
also recommended that an acting chancellor be appointed and that the at- 
tention of the academic community of Western Carolina "be directed to 
Section 502 of The Code." This section describes the powers and duties of 
the chancellor. 

Dr. Carlton served temporarily on the staff of the General Administra- 
tion and later accepted a position as academic vice president of Tennessee 
Technological University at Cookeville. 

Dr. W. Hugh McEniry, vice chancellor for academic affairs at the Uni- 



[314] The Multicampus University of North Carolina 

versity of North Carolina at Charlotte, was named acting chancellor of 
Western Carolina University, effective 10 September 1973. He was not a 
candidate for election as permanent chancellor. Dr. McEniry rendered a 
great service to the institution during the short period before he was 
forced to retire because of illness. The Board of Governors thanked him 
for his contribution "during a most difficult period." Dr. McEniry was 
one of the most highly respected administrators in the university, and his 
death in March 1974 was a great loss. 

Mr. Frank H. Brown was again named acting chancellor of Western 
Carolina University. The Board of Trustees had already appointed a 
search committee to recommend a permanent chancellor. The committee 
and Board of Trustees moved expeditiously, and the president made a rec- 
ommendation to the Board of Governors on 8 February 1974. It elected 
Dr. Harold F. Robinson chancellor, effective 1 June 1974. He was born in 
the mountains of North Carolina, in Mitchell County, and received his 
B.S. and M.S. from North Carolina State University and the Ph.D. from 
the University of Nebraska. An internationally known plant geneticist, 
he advanced through the ranks at North Carolina State University from 
1943 to 1965 when he was made administrative dean of research. He be- 
came vice chancellor of Georgia's university system in 1968 and in 1971 
became provost of Purdue University. He had served during World War II 
in the navy. 

Chancellor Robinson's return to the state in 1974 to lead Western Caro- 
lina University was most fortunate. He proved to be the right man in the 
right place at the right time. Within a remarkably short period of time, 
discord had been dispelled and peace and harmony had returned to the 
institution. Over the next ten years, the campus was transformed from a 
drab and unattractive place to one of beauty. The academic quality of the 
institution underwent a similar transformation. 

Chancellor Robinson retired in 1984 and was followed by Dr. Myron L. 
Coulter, president of Idaho State University, who had an impressive 
record at Indiana State Teachers College, Pennsylvania State University, 
and Western Michigan University. Chancellor Coulter held the master's 
and doctoral degrees from Indiana University. His record at Western 
Carolina University shows promise of continuing the progress achieved 
under his predecessor. 

The restructuring act brought into the university as one of the sixteen 
constituent institutions the North Carolina School of the Arts. It had 
been established in Winston-Salem under controversial circumstances 
during Governor Terry Sanford's administration. There were supporters 
of the institution who would have preferred that it not be swept up in the 
large multicampus university. There were others who felt that its chances 
of survival were enhanced by association with the University of North 



The Chancellors, 1972-1986 [3 I 5] 

Carolina. The president of the institution, who became the chancellor 
after 1 July 1972, was Mr. Robert Ward, a native of Ohio and a graduate 
of the Julliard School. Chancellor Ward had won a Pulitzer prize in 1962 
for his four-act opera, The Crucible, which was based on Arthur Miller's 
play. He found administration confining, and at the end of the 1972-73 
academic year he asked for a leave of absence, and on 15 January 1974 he 
resigned to take, as he said, a "less time consuming position in the 
School." Mr. Martin Sokoloff, vice chancellor for administration, was 
designated Acting Chancellor. 

A search committee made its nominations to President Friday, and on 8 
March 1974 Mr. Robert Suderburg was elected chancellor of the school, 
effective 1 August 1974. He graduated from the University of Minnesota 
and held advanced degrees in music from Yale University and the Univer- 
sity of Pennsylvania. He had won national recognition for his composi- 
tions and was, at the time of his appointment, professor of music at the 
University of Washington. In 1976, Chancellor Suderburg was granted a 
five-months leave to accept a Guggenheim Fellowship. 

The School of Arts was small, with an enrollment of around five hun- 
dred college students and approximately two hundred high school stu- 
dents. It was not an easy institution to administer. By 1983 Chancellor 
Suderburg was eager to return to full-time composing. He asked for an- 
other leave of absence, which the Board of Trustees was glad to grant. 

Dr. Lawrence E. Hart was appointed acting chancellor by President 
Friday in September 1983. He was a noted piano accompanist, had been 
chairman of the department of music at Iowa State University, and was 
the retired dean of the University of North Carolina at Greensboro 
School of Music. He gave competent leadership to the School of the Arts 
during 1983 -1984. 

Chancellor Suderburg resigned and after a search for a chancellor by 
the Board of Trustees, nominations were made to President Friday, and 
Dr. Jane Elizabeth Milley, who was dean of the School of Fine Arts of 
California State University at Long Beach, was elected on 27 July 1984. 
She was the first woman chancellor selected by the Board of Governors. 
Chancellor Milley is a native of Massachusetts and graduated from Boston 
University with a B. A. in music. She has an M. A. in music and a Ph.D. 
from Syracuse University. She taught music at Elmira College in New 
York and was assistant dean of humanities and fine arts at Sacramento 
City College. In 1980 she became assistant dean of the School of Fine 
Arts at California State University at Long Beach and in 1982 was ap- 
pointed dean. Chancellor Milley is an accomplished pianist. The North 
Carolina School of the Arts appears to be flourishing under her leader- 
ship; however, it needs more students. 

Dr. John T. Caldwell, chancellor of North Carolina State University, 



[316] The Multicampus University of North Carolina 

remained in that position for sixteen years and in 1975 reached the age of 
retirement. During the first few years following 1972 he was especially 
effective in the Administrative Council with advice for and as a role 
model to those who had not been associated with a multicampus univer- 
sity. After his retirement he continued a connection with North Carolina 
State University and performed many valuable services both for the uni- 
versity and for the General Administration. 

Dr. Jackson A. Rigney, professor of statistics and dean for international 
programs, was acting chancellor from 1 July to 31 December 1975. 

In September 1975 Dr. Joab L. Thomas was chosen by the Board of 
Governors to succeed Dr. Caldwell as chancellor of North Carolina State 
University, effective 1 January 1976. Dr. Thomas had been professor of 
biology at the University of Alabama since 1961. During the previous ten 
years he had also been dean of students at that institution. Dr. Thomas 
held the A.B., M.A., and Ph.D. from Harvard University, where he had 
specialized in biology. He proved to be an effective administrator, and 
North Carolina State continued to grow during his administration. The 
growth, as in the preceding administration, was more in the field of the 
liberal arts rather than in the technological fields. Dr. Thomas was at- 
tracted to the University of Alabama where he was elected president 
in 1981. 

Dr. Nash N. Winstead, provost and vice chancellor, served as acting 
chancellor until the election of Dr. Robert Bruce Poulton, who assumed 
office on 1 July 1982. Dr. Poulton received the B.S., M.S., and Ph.D. 
from Rutgers University and was an authority in the field of endo- 
crinology. He held an assistant professorship at Rutgers and then went to 
the University of Maine, where he became chairman of the Department 
of Animal and Veterinary Science and later dean of the College of Life 
Sciences and Agriculture. He was named chancellor of the university sys- 
tem of New Hampshire in 1975. Chancellor Poulton was troubled by the 
low graduation rate of the football team at North Carolina State, and over 
the next three years, he experienced some of the difficulties that were 
shaking the foundation of intercollegiate athletics nationwide; by 1985, 
he had the support of his trustees and the confidence of his faculty in the 
course that he had pursued. 

In 1977 Chancellor Kenneth R. Williams, who had been president of 
Winston-Salem State University from 1961 to 1972 and chancellor after 
restructuring, retired. He was a native of Virginia, a graduate of More- 
house College, and held the master's and doctorate from Boston Univer- 
sity. Chancellor Williams was an ordained Baptist minister and a popular 
preacher in the Winston-Salem area for three decades. He had been pro- 
fessor of history and religion at Winston-Salem State University. The in- 



The Chancellors, 1972- ig86 [317] 

stitution had been inadequately supported until after it became a part of 
the University of North Carolina. Chancellor Williams took advantage of 
the opportunities that he had to improve the institution, and it began to 
revive during the last few years of his tenure. 

Dr. Harold Douglas Covington was elected to succeed Chancellor 
Williams and assumed office 1 July 1977. Prior to his appointment, Dr. 
Covington had been vice president for development at Tuskegee. He was 
a native of Winston-Salem and held the master's and doctoral degrees 
from Ohio State University. Chancellor Covington gave the institution a 
period of competent administration until he was persuaded by Alabama 
State University to assume the presidency of that institution in 1984. Dr. 
Haywood L. Wilson, Jr., vice chancellor for student affairs, was ap- 
pointed acting chancellor by President Friday. A search committee was 
activated by the Board of Trustees, and Dr. Cleon F. Thompson, Jr., vice 
president for student services and special programs for the University of 
North Carolina General Administration since 1975, was elected by the 
Board of Governors in 1985. 

Chancellor Dean W. Colvard of the University of North Carolina at 
Charlotte served in that position from 1966 until his retirement in 1978. 
The twelve years he spent at Charlotte were characterized by spectacular 
growth in enrollment from approximately 2,000 to over 8,700. The in- 
stitution grew in physical plant, facilities, faculty, and programs to match 
the growth in enrollment. Few new institutions in the United States were 
as successful in such a short period of time in achieving maturity as the 
University of North Carolina at Charlotte. Dr. Colvard was ably assisted 
by Miss Bonnie E. Cone, former president of Charlotte College, who 
became the institution's vice-chancellor for student affairs. Her influence 
in the development of the institution was especially effective in commu- 
nity relations. 

Dr. E. K. Fretwell, Jr., became chancellor of the University of North 
Carolina at Charlotte on 1 January 1979. He earned the A.B. degree from 
Wesleyan University, the M.A. from Harvard, and the Ph.D. from Co- 
lumbia. For the previous twelve years, he had been president of Buffalo 
State University, a member of a multicampus system. Dr. Fretwell was a 
native of New York City, and as university dean for academic develop- 
ment at the City University of New York he had had further experience in 
a multicampus university system. Furthermore, he was well-acquainted 
with the problems that confront urban universities. Under his leadership, 
the University at Charlotte has continued to develop the kind of pro- 
grams that are especially suited to the needs of an urban environment, 
and it has been instrumental in the promotion of a research park near the 
campus that joins the resources of business and education. By the fall of 



[318] The Multicampus University of North Carolina 

1985, enrollment exceeded 10,800 which made it the fourth largest of the 
sixteen constituent institutions. Recently, the University of North Caro- 
lina at Charlotte received a high rating among institutions in its classifica- 
tion in the southeast. 

Prior to 1972 Dr. Leo Jenkins had been president of East Carolina Col- 
lege (and University) since i960. He continued as chancellor of East 
Carolina when it became one of the sixteen constituent institutions. Be- 
fore coming to East Carolina College in 1947 as dean for instruction, he 
had been professor of political science at Montclair State Teachers College 
and assistant to the commissioner of higher education for New Jersey. At 
East Carolina he served as dean until 1955 when he became vice presi- 
dent. Dr. Jenkins, who was a native of New Jersey, received the B.S. de- 
gree from Rutgers, the M.A. from Columbia, and the Ed.D. from New 
York University. He served during World War II in the Marine Corps with 
distinction at Guadalcanal, Guam, and Iwo Jima. 

Dr. Jenkins undertook the leadership of East Carolina University with 
the determination to make it indispensable to the people of eastern North 
Carolina. He was not a team player, and his tactics were overwhelming. 
He was an anomaly, a New Jersey yankee leading a charge of eastern 
North Carolinians against the Piedmont to recapture lost leadership. Dr. 
Jenkins worked with a singleness of purpose to accomplish his objectives, 
and when he retired in 1978, it was evident that his campaign had suc- 
ceeded. He achieved university status for his institution in the face of op- 
position from the Board of Higher Education. He broadened and ex- 
panded the curriculum to match the status accorded to the institution. In 
the face of opposition from the restructured university, the medical pro- 
fession, the accreditation authorities, and rival institutions, he won the 
political battle for a four-year medical school at East Carolina University. 
All the General Administration and Board of Governors could do was to 
make it a school of respectable quality. Dr. Jenkins did much of this by 
rallying the support of his faculty, his students, the citizens, and the po- 
litical establishment of eastern North Carolina. To please the region, he 
even brought his people big-time athletics. When he retired, Dr. Jenkins 
was still a controversial person to many people, but, to his constituency, 
he was a hero and a hard act to follow. 

Effective 1 July 1978, Dr. Thomas B. Brewer undertook the difficult 
task of succeeding Dr. Jenkins. Dr. Brewer had served as vice chancellor 
and dean of Texas Christian University since 1972. He received the B.A., 
M.A., and Ph.D. from the University of Pennsylvania. His specialty was 
United States business history. He had held teaching and administrative 
posts at the universities of Texas, Ohio, Iowa and Kentucky. Dr. Brewer 
came to East Carolina University from a private institution, with high 



The Chancellors, ig7 2- ig86 [319] 

hopes and ambitious plans. He had never held an administrative post in a 
multicampus university and found the procedures of state-supported 
higher education difficult to master. During his first month as chancellor, 
he experienced a traumatic personal tragedy in the loss of a daughter in an 
automobile accident. 

Chancellor Brewer fashioned for himself several problems that caused 
him difficulty. First, in a short time, he reorganized the administration 
that had brought the institution so much recognition, eliminating two 
vice-chancellors and creating two other vice-chancellor positions. During 
his brief tenure, nine deans retired, resigned or returned to teaching, and 
many department heads were replaced. Second, Chancellor Brewer's per- 
sonal style was difficult for his associates to fathom. The chairman of the 
Board of Governors, Mr. John Jordan, said, "Part of his problem was that 
he had to follow Leo Jenkins, and he was just a different kind of man." 
Chancellor Brewer was an educator concerned with the university's inter- 
nal affairs; Chancellor Jenkins was a key figure in regional and state poli- 
tics and was always striving for the expansion of East Carolina University. 

Finally, there were rumors that Chancellor Brewer was trying to find 
another job. In November 1980 the newspapers reported that he was one 
of the finalists for the presidency of the University of Louisville. A year 
later he was criticized by some trustees of the institution for not notifying 
them that he was a candidate for the presidency of West Virginia Univer- 
sity. Chancellor Brewer resigned in the face of the criticism and accepted 
a post as vice president of an institution in Georgia. Probably anyone 
who had accepted the position in 1978 would have had great difficulty 
following a dynamic and driving chancellor who had become a legend in 
his own time. 

President Friday asked Dr. John M. Howell to serve as acting chancel- 
lor on 8 January 1982. Dr. Howell was a wise, low-key, effective chancel- 
lor who was thoroughly comfortable in the office from the moment he 
began to act. The usual search for a chancellor was made and other candi- 
dates were interviewed, but there was little question as to the choice from 
the beginning. Dr. Howell was elected chancellor of East Carolina Uni- 
versity on 14 May 1982. He was a native of Alabama and received both 
the B.A. and M.A. degrees from the University of Alabama. In 1954 he 
received his Ph.D. in political science from Duke University. He had 
served in the U.S. Army Air Force during World War II, receiving a 
bronze star. Dr. Howell taught at Memphis State University and Sweet 
Briar College before going to East Carolina University in 1957. He had 
served as chairman of the department of political science, dean of the 
College of Arts and Sciences, dean of the graduate school, and as provost 
and vice-chancellor for academic affairs. The latter post he had left in 



[320] The Multicampus University of North Carolina 

1979. The university continued to grow under his quiet and effective 
leadership, and the medical school reached its full potential by 1986. His 
only difficulties came from the problems of big-time athletics that were 
plaguing many other American universities. 

Chancellor James S. Ferguson retired in 1979 to return to the class- 
room. He had been associated with the University of North Carolina at 
Greensboro since 1962 and was one of the most respected and beloved 
persons who served the institution throughout its entire history. He man- 
aged to convert it from a Woman's College to a multipurpose university 
serving all qualified students and still retain the goodwill of a large num- 
ber of alumnae who resented the change. He also was able to maintain the 
quality and distinction of the liberal arts program that had been the hall- 
mark of the institution for many years. The students who had the privi- 
lege of studying with him during the next few years were fortunate and 
remember him as a master teacher. Dr. Ferguson died in 1984, and the 
university lost one of its distinguished builders. 

Dr. William E. Moran was elected chancellor of the University of 
North Carolina at Greensboro in April 1979, and assumed office on 1 Au- 
gust. He had been chancellor of the University of Michigan at Flint for 
eight years and prior to that had served as assistant to the president of the 
State University of New York at Stony Brook. Dr. Moran received his 
A.B. at Princeton, his M. A. at Harvard, and his Ph.D. at the University 
of Michigan. He has continued the development of the university and has 
completed a successful fund raising campaign since assuming office. The 
institution has not increased its enrollment significantly in recent years; 
however, it has succeeded in maintaining its reputation as a good liberal 
arts institution. It is thought by some people that it is handicapped by the 
lack of a major athletic program. There are others who look upon this as 
an advantage. 

Chancellor Herbert Wey reached the age of retirement in 1979 and re- 
tired from his post at Appalachian State University where he had been 
first president and then chancellor since 1969. He received the B.S. degree 
from Indiana State College and the M.S. and Ed.D. degrees from Indiana 
University. Dr. Wey came to Boone in 1937 from Indiana to teach mathe- 
matics and physics at the Appalachian State Teachers College Demonstra- 
tion High School. By 1953, when he left to join the staff of the Univer- 
sity of Miami (Florida), he was head of the Education Department. He 
came back to Appalachian State Teachers College in 1955 as head of the 
graduate school but returned two years later to Miami. During his ad- 
ministration the institution experienced continued rapid growth in enroll- 
ment, curriculum, and physical facilities. 

Dr. John E. Thomas succeeded Dr. Wey as Chancellor of Appalachian 



The Chancellors, igj2-ig86 [3 21 ] 

State University on i July 1979. He had been vice chancellor for academic 
affairs since 1974. Dr. Thomas was a native of Texas. He held a bachelor's 
degree in electrical engineering, a J.D. in law, and the master's and doc- 
toral degrees in business administration. Prior to coming to Appalachian, 
he had been department head and dean at East Texas State University. 
Under his leadership the institution has continued to grow both in quality 
and in enrollment. Following the example set by Chancellor Wey, he has 
continued to place emphasis on extension and other outreach types of 
programs. The development around Appalachian State University has 
made it a popular and attractive place to live, and the presence of the Con- 
ference Center on the campus has drawn many people to the area. 

Chancellor English E. Jones retired from Pembroke State University in 
1979. The son of a Robeson County tenant farmer and a member of the 
Lumbee Indian community, Chancellor Jones graduated from high school 
at the top of his class, and was president of his class, captain of all the 
athletic teams, and president of the Future Farmers of America before he 
went off to war. He entered Western Kentucky University after service in 
World War II and graduated with a degree in agriculture. Later he earned 
the master's degree from North Carolina State University. 

Chancellor Jones taught in the North Carolina public schools and 
worked with the North Carolina State University Extension Service. In 
1956 he became assistant professor of agriculture at Pembroke and ad- 
vanced through the ranks to president and then chancellor. He was the 
first Indian to head a four-year American college. The influence of Chan- 
cellor Jones on his institution and his community marked him as one of 
the most remarkable persons in North Carolina. Pembroke State Univer- 
sity, during the time he served the institution, grew from a small pre- 
dominantly Indian college of less than 400 students to a multipurpose in- 
stitution enrolling more than 2,200 students, about 66 percent of whom 
were white, about 20 percent Indian, and the remainder black. When he 
died at age 59 in 1981, he was universally mourned and is remembered as 
one who brought about an awakening in his native community. 

A search committee struggled to find a successor to Chancellor Jones. 
There was sentiment in the area for an Indian. The committee came up 
with two Indians who represented rival groups. It also nominated a third 
person who was white. After long deliberation and a thorough investiga- 
tion, President Friday recommended the third nominee, Dr. Paul Givens, 
who was elected by the board in May 1979, effective 1 July. Dr. Givens 
received his B.A. and M.A. degrees from George Peabody College and 
his Ph.D. in psychology from Vanderbilt University. He had served as 
professor and department chairman at Birmingham-Southern College 
and at the University of South Florida. For a time, he had been dean and 



[322] The Multicampus University of North Carolina 

director of institutional research at Ithaca College in New York. For the 
previous seven years, Dr. Givens had been vice president for academic 
affairs at Millikin University in Illinois. His credentials were so convinc- 
ing that he was accepted by the academic community immediately. Un- 
der Chancellor Givens's leadership Pembroke had its largest enrollment in 
the fall of 1985; furthermore, he has succeeded in improving the academic 
standards, the physical facilities, and the quality of life in the institution. 

Chancellor N. Ferebee Taylor of the University of North Carolina at 
Chapel Hill assumed office in 1972, and continued until his resignation in 
1980 following a serious illness. His administration covered the period of 
severe inflation and also the struggle between the university and OCR. 
Chancellor Taylor was considered to be austere and formal in his adminis- 
trative style; however, he was an effective leader of the university at 
Chapel Hill and directed his effort toward preserving the position of the 
flagship campus in the academic world. This concern was thought by 
some of his colleagues to affect his potential for leadership in the Admin- 
istrative Council. Chancellor Taylor succeeded in improving the quality 
of the university during his administration. It continued to be recognized 
as a leader among American universities and to increase its standing 
among its peers. The plans for a great library that was completed during 
the next administration was probably his most significant achievement. 
Chancellor Taylor recovered his health and joined the faculty of the School 
of Law where he soon achieved distinction as a master teacher. 

The search committee that was appointed to find a successor to Chan- 
cellor Taylor presented President Friday with several alternatives that led 
him to nominate Dr. Christopher C. Fordham III, a brilliant medical ad- 
ministrator who was elected in February 1980, effective 1 March. Dr. 
Fordham is a native of Greensboro, North Carolina, and attended the 
university at Chapel Hill where he completed the two-year program in 
medicine in 1949. In 195 1 he graduated from the Harvard Medical School 
and, after an internship and residency and service in the U.S. Air Force, 
hejoined the faculty of the University of North Carolina School of Medi- 
cine in 1958. He advanced to the position of associate dean and left 
Chapel Hill in 1969 to become vice president for medicine and dean of 
the School of Medicine at the Medical College of Georgia at Augusta. He 
returned to Chapel Hill in 1971 and, at the time of his election as chancel- 
lor, was vice-chancellor for health affairs and dean of the School of Medi- 
cine. He proved to be a popular chancellor and quickly demonstrated that 
his talent for administration was not confined to the field of medicine. He 
shares a special trait with his predecessor — that of great concern for the 
standing of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in the aca- 
demic world and for its ability to secure the resources to maintain that 
standing. 



The Chancellors, 1972- ig86 [323] 

The university at Chapel Hill deliberately curtailed its growth in num- 
bers during the entire period after restructuring in the interest of main- 
taining quality, and it experienced no difficulty in admitting superior stu- 
dents. One spectacular change that occurred during this period was in the 
composition of the student body which moved from about 36 percent 
women to about 57 percent. There was a significant increase in the num- 
ber of black students enrolled during the decade 1975- 1985. Chancellor 
Fordham also experienced a severe illness, but he was able to recover, and 
with a capable administrative staff the university continues to improve in 
both quality and facilities. During his administration two of the largest 
public buildings ever constructed in North Carolina have been dedicated 
on the campus: the Walter R. Davis Library, which cost over 23 million 
dollars and the Dean E. Smith Student Activities Center, which cost over 
33 million dollars. 

Chancellor Lewis C. Dowdy of North Carolina Agricultural and Tech- 
nical State University retired from that position on 30 June 198 1 and re- 
ceived a one-year leave of absence. He sought the leave for reasons of 
health and to prepare to resume a full-time faculty position as professor of 
education. Dr. Dowdy received his bachelor's degree from Allen Univer- 
sity in Columbia, South Carolina, and he received the degree, Doctor of 
Education, from Indiana University. He joined the faculty of North 
Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University in 195 1 and became 
president in 1964 and then chancellor after 1972. As head of the institu- 
tion, he supervised its transition from a college of about 3,000 enrollment 
to a university with an enrollment of 5,500. Dr. Dowdy was the first 
black to become president pf the National Association of State Univer- 
sities and Land Grant Colleges and the first to head the President's Coun- 
cil of that association. 

In April 1980 the state auditor, Henry Bridges, made several criticisms 
about the financial management of North Carolina Agricultural and 
Technical State University. A deluge of federal and corporate funds had 
come to the institution a decade previously when it was not equipped to 
handle the funds. Its antiquated bookkeeping methods, where many files 
and records were kept by hand, made the accounts difficult to audit. In 
May the Board of Governors employed two consultants to review the in- 
stitution's finances and the institution itself employed an accounting firm 
from Durham. Even before the April 1980 audit, Chancellor Dowdy had 
found it necessary to remove two vice-chancellors for financial affairs in 
succession. 

Dr. Cleon Thompson, vice president for student services and special 
programs in the General Administration, was appointed acting chancellor 
by President Friday beginning 1 November 1980, while a search commit- 
tee was looking for a permanent chancellor. When Dr. Thompson com- 



[324] The Multicampus University of North Carolina 

pleted his assignment, the Board of Governors adopted a resolution prais- 
ing his work, in which it stated, "Dr. Thompson calmed the fears, 
created hope and moved the work of the institution forward," and it con- 
tinued, "those with whom he was associated quickly came to see that he 
was a person of fairness and high principle. He did everything with grace 
and good humor. He served the University and the State well during a 
very difficult period." 

On the recommendation of President Friday, Dr. Edward B. Fort was 
elected chancellor of North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State 
University on 12 June 1981. Prior to this, he had been chancellor of the 
University of Wisconsin Center System, composed of fourteen two-year 
colleges. He was a native of Michigan and received both the B.A. and 
M. A. degrees from Wayne State University and the Ph.D. in educational 
administration from the University of California at Berkeley. Dr. Fort 
had also been superintendent of the Sacramento Unified School District, 
which had 50,000 students, a faculty of over 1,000 and a budget of $65 
million. He had served as visiting professor of education in a number of 
universities. 

Chancellor Fort went about his assignment with energy and thor- 
oughness; however, the institution continued to be plagued with fiscal 
problems that were criticized by state auditor Edward Renfro. The press 
began to criticize the Board of Governors for not taking a more active 
part in untangling the institution's financial records. Finally, in April 
1984, Mr. Bryant Deaton, assistant vice president for finance in the Gen- 
eral Administration, was assigned to work full-time on the campus to 
bring the institution's financial records up to date and to install a new 
computerized system. President Friday reported, "He is there to get the 
whole thing straightened out. We did this because it was time for this 
office to take steps to resolve these matters." A year later, the state auditor 
gave the institution's financial records a clean bill of health. The audit re- 
leased in September 1985 stated, "This is the first report we've issued at 
A & T since I've been auditor that we didn't take exception to how they 
were handling things . . . They've clearly turned the corner and it should 
be smooth sailing from now on." 

The Board of Governors adopted a resolution on 13 May 1983 honor- 
ing Chancellor Marion Dennis Thorpe of Elizabeth City State Univer- 
sity. Chancellor Thorpe had died in April. He served first as president of 
Elizabeth City State College beginning in 1968 and then as chancellor in 
1972. He was a native of Durham and held the bachelor's and master's de- 
grees from North Carolina Central University. In 1961 he received the 
Ph.D. from Michigan State University. He had served four years between 
1952 and 1956 in the U.S. Air Force. He was field operations director for 



The Chancellors, 1972-1986 [3 2 5] 

the Youth Corps Program for four years after receiving his doctorate and 
returned to North Carolina in 1966 to the position of assistant director of 
the State Board of Higher Education. In 1967 he became vice president of 
Central State University in Ohio and returned from that position to as- 
sume the presidency of Elizabeth City State College. During the sixteen 
years of his administration, Elizabeth City State experienced a complete 
transformation. Under his leadership the quality of the student body, the 
curriculum, and the facilities were greatly improved. He entered actively 
into the civic affairs of northeastern North Carolina and was recognized 
as one of the respected leaders of higher education in the state. The in- 
stitution at Elizabeth City and the University of North Carolina lost one 
of its most talented leaders in the untimely death of Chancellor Thorpe. 

President Friday named Vice-Chancellor Jimmy R. Jenkins Acting 
Chancellor, and, following an extensive search, Dr. Jenkins was named 
chancellor by the Board of Governors on 14 October 1983. He is an 
alumnus of Elizabeth City State University where he received the bache- 
lor of science degree in biology. He received the master of science in biol- 
ogy and the doctorate in science education from Purdue University. Dr. 
Jenkins's first teaching experience was in high-school biology. He was a 
teaching assistant and graduate research assistant at Purdue University 
until he returned to Elizabeth City State as assistant academic dean and 
assistant professor of biology in 1972. In 1977 he became vice-chancellor 
for academic affairs and dean of the faculty. He has a number of publica- 
tions to his credit in the field of biology and science education. The most 
significant development of his administration has been the location of a 
graduate center at Elizabeth City State University that provides instruc- 
tion for teachers in that area with faculty drawn from the University of 
North Carolina at Chapel Hill, East Carolina University, and North 
Carolina State University. 

Dr. Albert N. Whiting, president of North Carolina Central Univer- 
sity beginning in 1967 and then chancellor after 1972, reached the age of 
retirement in 1983. He was a native of New Jersey, a graduate of Amherst 
College, a sociologist by training, and had taught and held administrative 
positions at Bennett College, Atlanta University, Morris Brown College, 
and Morgan State College. He found it difficult to adjust to the environ- 
ment of a multicampus university and wrote articles and made speeches 
that reflected his aversion for the change. He was commended for the ex- 
pansion that occurred during his administration, which included a new 
physical education complex, expansion of the library, a communications 
building, and the law-school building; however, North Carolina Central 
University had some serious problems. The law school was on probation 
by the American Bar Association for six years, and the failing rate of law- 



[326] The Multicampus University of North Carolina 

school graduates was excessive. The graduates of the nursing program 
also had a large number of failures. There was difficulty with a poor sys- 
tem of record keeping for student aid, and there were complaints that 
the administrative structure of the institutions had become rigid and 
authoritarian. 

The Search Committee that advised the Board of Trustees did not suc- 
ceed in locating candidates who were acceptable to the faculty of North 
Carolina Central. Two persons were nominated to President Friday, but 
after receiving the reaction of the faculty, he did not recommend either to 
the Board of Governors. To allow dissension to subside, he named Dr. 
LeRoy T. Walker acting chancellor and requested the Board of Trustees to 
make a new search for a permanent chancellor. 

Dr. Walker was one of the most highly respected coaches in the nation. 
He had chaired the U.S. Olympic Committee. He had coached the U.S. 
track and field Olympic team and had assisted numerous national teams 
who represented their countries in Olympic competition. His inter- 
national reputation was that of a coach, but Dr. Walker was much more. 
He had a Ph.D. from New York University; he had been director of pro- 
gramming, planning and training for the Peace Corps; and for almost 
forty years he had been coach and professor at North Carolina Central. 
During this period he had served as chairman of the Physical Education 
Department and for ten years as vice-chancellor for university relations. 
Chancellor Walker was a talented public speaker and, despite his age, a 
person of unusual vigor. The institution was so inspirited that he con- 
tinued to lead it for the next two years, and the Board of Governors hon- 
ored him by selecting him chancellor retroactive to the beginning of his 
appointment. 

A new search committee went to work and made a recommendation to 
the North Carolina Central University Board of Trustees that was pre- 
sented to President Friday. He found among the persons recommended 
an attractive and energetic new leader who had emerged on the campus. 
Dr. Tyronza R. Richmond, dean of the School of Business and professor 
of decision sciences and computer information systems, was elected 
effective 1 July 1986. This time there was consensus among the fac- 
ulty that the right choice had been made. Dr. Richmond is a native of 
Memphis, Tennessee. He received a bachelor of arts in mathematics at 
Fisk University, a master of arts from the American University in Wash- 
ington, D.C., and a Ph.D. in operations research from Purdue Univer- 
sity. He has served on the faculty of Syracuse University and Howard 
University. At the latter institution he was associate dean of the School of 
Business Administration before coming to North Carolina Central Uni- 
versity in 1977. 



The Chancellors, igj2-ig86 [3 2 7] 

Chancellor William E. Highsmith of the University of North Carolina 
at Asheville announced in 1983 his desire to retire on 30 June 1984. 
He had had a successful career for twenty-one years as president of 
Asheville-Biltmore College from 1962 to 1969 and as chancellor since 
then. The solid academic program for which he had been responsible at 
Asheville was respected by his colleagues. In the fall of 1977 Dr. Ar- 
nold K. King, assistant to the president, served as acting chancellor while 
Chancellor Highsmith was on leave because of illness. 

A committee was appointed to assist in locating a successor to Dr. 
Highsmith. The members of the Board of Trustees and the leaders in the 
Asheville area emphasized that they wanted a chancellor who could bring 
the University of North Carolina at Asheville and its qualities more 
clearly into state and national prominence. President Friday found among 
those recommended to him one who seemed to meet their demands. He 
recommended to the Board of Governors Dr. David Brown, an eminent 
economist and authority on the American college presidency, who was 
elected to take office on 1 July 1984. Dr. Brown is a native of Chicago, a 
graduate of Denison University in Ohio, and has his master's and Ph.D. 
in economics from Princeton. He taught economics at the University of 
North Carolina at Chapel Hill and left in 1966 to become provost of 
Drake University. Afterwards, he was executive vice president of Miami 
University (Ohio) and, for a brief period, president of Transylvania Uni- 
versity in Lexington, Kentucky. The year before he was chosen chancel- 
lor, he worked with Dr. Clark Kerr and Dr. David Riesman, the Harvard 
sociologist, on a study of the American college presidency for the Asso- 
ciation of Governing Boards. Dr. Brown is the author of several books 
and numerous articles. He went to work at once to establish the Univer- 
sity of North Carolina at Asheville as a partner to be admired among the 
sixteen constituent institutions. 

On 1 July 1972 there were ten former presidents of institutions merged 
into the University of North Carolina and six chancellors of the former 
Consolidated University who were entitled by chapter 1244, section 18 
of the 1 97 1 Session Laws, to continue as chancellors of their respective 
institutions. Fourteen years later, on 1 July 1986, two of the original 
group were still at their posts. Eight had retired at or near age sixty-five. 
Two had retired because of illness, one of whom died within two years. 
Two left office under stressful circumstances. One left office to return to 
teaching and creative activity. One died in office. 

The Board of Governors, on recommendation of the president, elected 
over the intervening years twenty persons to the office of chancellor. 
Nineteen were selected from panels nominated to the president by the 
several boards of trustees. The exception had served as acting chancellor 



[328] The Multicampus University of North Carolina 

with distinction and was given the title toward the end of his term. Of the 
remaining nineteen, fourteen are still at their posts, two left under stressful 
circumstances, two resigned to accept university presidencies, and one 
reached the age of retirement. 

The chancellor, in accordance with G.S. ii6~34(a), "shall be the 
administrative and executive head of an institution and shall exercise 
complete executive authority therein, subject to the direction of the 
President." The Board of Governors in its "Delegations of Duty and Au- 
thority to Boards of Trustees" gives boards of trustees functions that 
could cause a chancellor to ask "to whom should I look for direction?" If 
there have been jurisdictional problems because of apparent ambiguities, 
they have not been recorded. The statute reads, "subject to the direction 
of the President." That is the rock on which everyone has been content to 
stand for fourteen years. 

There has been some criticism of the provision in the statute that re- 
quires the president to nominate to the Board of Governors one person 
for chancellor "from a list of not fewer than two names recommended by 
the institutional Board of Trustees." A procedure has been included in the 
Code to guide boards of trustees in establishing a search committee and 
letting the president interview all of the finalists before any names are 
presented to him. This procedure has been followed twenty times with 
the chairman of the board as chairman of a search committee that includes 
board members, faculty, students, and alumni. 

The president has usually briefed the committee at the beginning of its 
search, and he has seen the finalists; however, the procedure does not give 
him and his advisors a positive role in the selection process. The president 
can either veto or agree when he receives the nominees. This has worked 
with only moderate success. There has been one real confrontation, and 
there have been several close calls. There may even have been some mis- 
takes. Many persons believe that selecting a chancellor is the most impor- 
tant single function of the president and the Board of Governors. 



CHAPTER 17 

The Board of Governors, 
1972-1986 



The provisions of the restructuring act that applied to the organization 
and operation of the Board of Governors have already been discussed. 
Most of the important issues that have confronted the board and the way 
those issues have been handled have also been discussed; however, little 
attention has been given to the actual procedures that the board has grad- 
ually evolved for carrying on its work, and no attention has been given to 
the numerous changes that have occurred in the membership and the 
leadership of the board since 1972. 

Perhaps the most persistent policy of the board since its first meeting as 
the Planning Committee has been the determination that each member be 
personally informed on each issue and involved in dealing with it. One of 
the criticisms of the Board of Trustees of the Consolidated University 
concerned its practice of delegating many important decisions to its 
executive committee. Members of the Board of Governors were adamant 
in their determination not to have a powerful executive committee. 

The Board of Governors is required by statute to meet at least six times 
annually. Actually, it has met at least ten times every year because of the 
volume of business and the determination of members of the board to be 
personally involved. It required seven years for the board to perfect its 
committee structure, and in recent years the committees have functioned 
smoothly. All committees are open except when dealing with matters 
that permit an executive session under the open meetings act. The Code 
provides that all committee meetings are open to all members of the 
board. A regulation governing the agenda for board meetings requires 
adequate notice and full information on all matters to come before the 
board for action. The board has acquired a smooth and predictable proce- 
dure for conducting its business. There have been occasional debates over 
such issues as the dispute with the Office of Civil Rights, the East Caro- 
lina Medical School, aid to private colleges, the North Carolina State 
University School of Veterinary Medicine, salary ranges for administra- 

[329] 



[330] The Multicampus University of North Carolina 

tive officers, the overenrollment of some campuses, the pressures and ten- 
sions created by big-time athletics, changes and additions to appropria- 
tion priorities by the General Assembly, the failure rate on the State Bar 
examination and the State Board of Nursing examination and other 
issues, but these debates were not acrimonious or divisive. 

The operation of the Board of Governors has been greatly facilitated 
over the years by the organizational ability of Mr. John P. Kennedy, Jr. , 
secretary of the university. Mr. Kennedy was assisted by Dr. Neal K. 
Cheek from 1 July 1973 until 24 June 1979. Dr. Edward W. Crowe be- 
came assistant secretary on 1 May 1980. Since July 1979 Mrs. Frances 
Hope has been assistant secretary of the board and responsible for the 
minutes. The staff of the secretary is responsible for arranging meetings 
of the board, sending out the agenda and information concerning matters 
to come before the board. They arrange for the new members of the 
board to visit all of the sixteen campuses of the university. Periodic meet- 
ings of a conference of boards of trustees and members of the Board of 
Governors are arranged at various locations across the state. The staff also 
makes arrangements for the board to entertain retiring members of the 
sixteen faculties at the May meeting of the board each year, and they do 
all the staff work necessary for making the O. Max Gardner Award at the 
May meeting. Mr. Kennedy is the liaison between the Board of Gover- 
nors and the various boards of trustees and notifies the boards of trustees 
of members that have been elected by the Board of Governors. With unas- 
suming anonymity, Mr. Kennedy has handled the large number of details 
for which he is responsible so effectively that few persons recognize the 
source of the civil and gracious conduct with which the affairs of the 
board are discharged. 

The thirty-two members of the Board of Governors were divided into 
four classes of eight members each who were elected for staggered terms 
of eight years beginning with the first elected class on 1 July 1973. 

G.S.n6-6(e) provides that: "Of the eight members elected every two 
years, at least one shall be a woman, at least one other member shall be 
a member of a minority race, and at least one other member shall be a 
member of the political party to which the largest minority of the mem- 
bers of the General Assembly belong." 

G.S. 1 1 6- 7(b) imposes the following restriction on membership on the 
Board of Governors: "no member of the General Assembly or officer or 
employee of the State or of any constituent institution or spouse of any 
such member, officer or employee may be a member of the Board of 
Governors." 

In G.S.n6-7(a), the following special qualifications are stipulated for 
selection of members of the Board of Governors: "All members of the 



The Board of Governors, 1972-1986 [33 1] 

Board of Governors shall be selected for their interest in, and their ability 
to contribute to the fulfillment of, the purposes of the Board of Gover- 
nors, and all members shall be deemed members-at-large, charged with 
the responsibility of serving the best interests of the whole State. In elect- 
ing members, the objective shall be to obtain the services of the best 
qualified citizens of the State, taking into consideration the need for repre- 
sentation on the Board by the different races, sexes and political parties." 

At the Quail Roost meeting of the Planning Committee on 4 and 5 
January 1972, the representatives from the sixteen institutions who were 
to constitute the first Board of Governors divided themselves by lot into 
four classes of eight each to be replaced successively by election of the 
General Assembly in 1973, 1975, 1977 and 1979. Since 1972, seventy-one 
persons have served on the Board of Governors. There have been seven 
elected classes, and since 1 July 1979 all members of the board have been 
elected by the General Assembly. Thirty-two of these, representing the 
classes of 1987, 1989, 1991 and 1993, were active in 1986. Twenty who 
had stood for reelection had been defeated; twelve had resigned before 
completing their terms; five had voluntarily retired at the end of their 
terms; and two had died in office. Seventeen persons had been reelected 
once, and five had been reelected twice. Nine of the original members 
were on the board in 1986. 

The General Assembly of 1973 elected members of the Board of Gover- 
nors for the class of 198 1. Mr. Arch T. Allen, Dr. Andrew Best, Mrs. 
Emily H. Preyer, and Mr. E.J. Whitmire were defeated. Mr. C. H. Larkin, 
Sr., did not seek reelection. Those reelected were: Mr. Hugh Cannon; 
Mr. Thomas J. White, Jr., for a short term replacing Mr. Howard C. 
Barnhill of the class of 1977 who resigned to accept a state appointment; 
and Mr. George M. Wood, who had been appointed by Governor Scott 
to replace Mr. Ike Andrews after he resigned following his election to the 
U.S. Congress. New members elected were Mrs. Julia T. Morton (woman 
category) and Messrs. Philip G. Carson, T. Worth Coltrane (minority 
party), Luther H. Hodges, Jr., David J. Whichard II, and John W. Winters 
(minority race). Only two of the original members carried over to the 
class of 1 98 1, and the six new members were notable for their future con- 
tributions to the board. This first election established the precedent that 
most candidates had to campaign in the General Assembly and have influ- 
ential sponsors if they had a chance to be elected. It had been expected 
that the position would seek the person, but this did not develop. Many 
qualified citizens refuse to engage in the political campaigning that is nec- 
essary to win a seat on the board. 

At the first meeting of the board on 7 July 1972 Governor Scott pre- 
sided and Mr. Arch T. Allen served as secretary. At that meeting, Mr. 



[332] The Multicampus University of North Carolina 

William A. Dees, Jr., was elected vice chairman of the board and Mr. 
Howard C. Barnhill, secretary; both were uncontested. On 10 November 
Mr. Dees was elected chairman to replace Governor Scott whose term 
ended before the next meeting, and Mr. W. Earl Britt was elected vice- 
chairman; both were also uncontested. Mr. Barnhill resigned as secretary, 
and on 13 July 1973 Mr. Louis T. Randolph was elected unanimously to 
replace him. On 12 July 1974 the three officers, Messrs. Dees, Britt and 
Randolph, were reelected unanimously for a second term of two years. 

The General Assembly of 1975 elected the Board of Governors' class of 
1983. Messrs. Clark Brown, Lenox G. Cooper, and W. W. Taylor, Jr., 
were defeated for reelection. Mr. William B. Rankin did not seek reelec- 
tion. Mrs. Adelaide F. Holderness (woman category) and Messrs. John R. 
Jordan, Jr., J. Aaron Prevost and Louis T. Randolph (minority race) were 
reelected. New members elected were Messrs. Irwin Belk, Wayne A. 
Corpening, Daniel C. Gunter, Jr., and Harley F. Shuford, Jr. (minority 
party). 

On 9 July 1976 Mr. William A. Johnson was elected chairman of the 
Board of Governors; Mrs. Adelaide F. Holderness, vice chairman; and 
Dr. E. B. Turner, secretary; all three were uncontested. 

The General Assembly of 1977 elected the class of 1985. Mr. Robert B. 
Jordan III resigned 23 November 1976 after being elected to the state 
senate. Dr. Wallace Hyde and Messrs. Victor S. Bryant and Thomas J. 
White, Jr., who had replaced Mr. Barnhill, were all defeated. Mr. George 
Watts Hill was elected to the class of 198 1 to replace Mr. George M. Wood 
who had resigned to run for nomination for governor in the primary 
of the Democratic Party. Mrs. Betty McCain (woman category), who 
had replaced Mrs. Virginia Lathrop (deceased 1 December 1974), and 
Messrs. Reginald F. McCoy and Maceo A. Sloan (minority race) were re- 
elected. Those elected for the first time were Messrs. F. P. Bodenheimer, 
Laurence A. Cobb (minority party), Charles Z. Flack, Jr., James E. 
Holmes, and W. D. Mills. 

On 14 July 1978 Mr. William A.Johnson, chairman; Mrs. Adelaide F. 
Holderness, vice-chairman; and Dr. E. B. Turner, secretary, were all re- 
elected without a contest. 

The General Assembly of 1979 elected the 1987 class of the Board 
of Governors. Dr. Hugh S. Daniel, Jr., did not stand for reelection. 
Mrs. Elise R. Wilson and Mrs. Kathleen K. Crosby, who had been ap- 
pointed on 9 September 1977 by Chairman Johnson under the terms of 
G.S.i 1 6- 7(c) to replace Mr. Julius L. Chambers (resigned on 22 August 
1977), were defeated. The following were reelected: Messrs. William A. 
Dees, Jr.; Jacob H. Froelich, Jr.; Robert L. Jones, who had replaced Mr. 
W. Earl Britt when he resigned (30 June 1975); and Dr. E. B. Turner (mi- 



The Board of Governors, igj2-ig86 [333] 

nority race). The following new members were elected: Mrs. Grace Epps 
(woman category), Mr. B. Irwin Boyle, and Governor James E. Hol- 
shouser, Jr. (minority party). 

On ii July 1980 Mr. John R. Jordan, Jr., was elected chairman of 
the Board of Governors; Mrs. Julia T. Morton, vice-chairman; and Mr. 
Louis T. Randolph, secretary; all were uncontested. 

The General Assembly of 1981 elected the 1989 class of the Board of 
Governors. Mr. George Watts Hill, who had been elected in 1977 to com- 
plete the term of Mr. George M. Wood, chose not to stand for reelection. 
Mr. Hugh Cannon, Mr. T. Worth Coltrane, and Mr. Jack O'Kelley were 
defeated. Mr. O'Kelley was elected in April 1979 to replace Mr. J. J. San- 
som, Jr., who had been elected in July 1975 to replace Mr. John W. Win- 
ters. The latter was elected to the North Carolina State Senate in Novem- 
ber 1974. Mr. Sansom was appointed to the State Banking Commission 
in October 1977. He contended that he could serve on both the Board of 
Governors and the Banking Commission. The matter was in litigation 
until 1979 when the North Carolina Court of Appeals ruled against him 
[Sansom v. Johnson, 39 N.C. App. 682, 251 S.E. 2d 629 (1979)]. The fol- 
lowing were reelected: Mrs. Geneva J. Bowe (minority race) who had 
been appointed on 12 September 1980 by Chairman John R. Jordan, Jr., 
under terms of G.S. n6-7(c) to replace Mr. Luther H. Hodges, Jr. (re- 
signed on 27 June 1979, to accept appointment as undersecretary of the 
U.S. Department of Commerce); Mr. Philip G. Carson; Mrs. Julia T. 
Morton (woman category); and Mr. David J. Whichard II. New members 
elected were: Messrs. Walter R. Davis, R. Phillip Haire, Asa T Spauld- 
ing, Jr. (minority party), and William K. Woltz. 

On 30 July 1982 Mr. John R.Jordan, Jr., chairman, Mrs. Julia T. Mor- 
ton, vice-chairman, and Mr. Louis T Randolph, secretary, were all re- 
elected without opposition. 

The legislature of 1983 elected the class of 1991. Mr. Harley F. Shu- 
ford, Jr., did not stand for reelection. Mr. Daniel C. Gunter, Jr., and 
Mrs. Adelaide F. Holderness were defeated. The following were reelected: 
Messrs. Irwin Belk, Wayne A. Corpening, John R. Jordan, Jr., J. Aaron 
Prevost, and Louis T. Randolph (minority race). New members elected 
were: Dr. James E. Danieley (minority party), Mrs. Joan S. Fox (woman 
category), and Mr. Samuel H. Poole. 

The General Assembly of 1985 elected the class of 1993. Messrs. F. P. 
Bodenheimer, John E. Davenport, and James E. Holmes were defeated for 
reelection. Mr. Davenport had been elected in April 1979 to fill the unex- 
pired term of Mr. William D. Mills, who was elected to the North Caro- 
lina State Senate in November 1978. Mr. Laurence A. Cobb, whose term 
ended in 1985, was elected to the North Carolina Senate in November 



[334] The Multicampus University oj North Carolina 

1984. Those reelected were: Messrs. Charles Z. Flack, Jr., Reginald F. 
McCoy, and Maceo A. Sloan (minority race); also, Mrs. Martha McNair 
(woman category) was appointed by Chairman John R. Jordan, Jr., on 
12 February 1981 under terms of G.S. 1 16- 7(c) to fill the vacancy of Mrs. 
Betty McCain, who was appointed to the Advisory Budget Commission 
on 6 February 1981, and Mrs. McNair was subsequently elected by the 
legislature of 198 1. The new members elected were Messrs. Roderick D. 
Adams, John A. Garwood (minority party), and D. Samuel Neill. 

The review of changes in the membership of the Board of Governors 
presented above indicates a steady trend from the old leaders to a new 
generation. The General Assembly within a decade defeated thirteen of 
those who served on the Planning Committee in 1972. Nine others re- 
signed or retired and one died. All members of the original group were 
entitled to serve two eight-year elected terms. This meant that anyone on 
the Planning Committee who drew a term ending in 1973 served one year 
and then was eligible to serve sixteen elected years. In 1986, no member 
of the original class of 1973 was still serving on the board. Three mem- 
bers of the class of 1975, Messrs. John R. Jordan, Jr., J. Aaron Prevost, 
and Louis T. Randolph, were serving final terms on the board at the end 
of which they would have had nineteen years. Two members of the class 
of 1977, Mr. Reginald F. McCoy and Mr. Maceo A. Sloan, were serving 
final terms on the board at the end of which they would have twenty-one 
years of service. Four members of the class of 1979, Messrs. William A. 
Dees, Jr., Jacob H. Froelich, Jr., and William A. Johnson and Dr. E. B. 
Turner, were eligible for reelection in 1987 to the class of 1995. If they 
should be reelected and complete their terms, they would have twenty- 
three years of service. 

There was muted criticism that some of the later replacements on the 
board did not meet fully the criteria for membership stated in the restruc- 
turing act. Critics were asking why there were no leading representatives 
of industry, banking, agriculture, law, medicine, and education being 
added to the Board of Governors. In response, it was argued that the po- 
litical process by which members of the Board of Governors were chosen 
made it difficult to persuade candidates to run for election. It was also 
mentioned that many members of the board had been forced to resign 
because of the statute that disqualified legislators and other public em- 
ployees. Mr. Ike F. Andrews was elected to Congress; Mr. Howard C. 
Barnhill received a state government appointment; Mr. George M. Wood 
resigned to run for the Democratic nomination for governor; Mr. Luther 
H. Hodges, Jr., was appointed undersecretary of the U.S. Department of 
Commerce; Mr. J.J. Sansom, Jr., was appointed to the State Banking 
Commission; Mrs. Betty McCain was appointed to the Advisory Budget 



The Board of Governors, igj2-ig86 [335] 

Commission; and Messrs. Laurence A. Cobb, Robert B. Jordan III, 
William D. Mills, and John W. Winters were elected to the North Caro- 
lina State Senate. Mr. Jordan was subsequently elected lieutenant gov- 
ernor. In addition, Mr. W. Earl Britt resigned because of the pressure 
from his legal practice and was later appointed judge of the Federal Dis- 
trict Court. 

It was emphasized that many successors of those who served on the 
Planning Committee made important contributions as committee chair- 
men and as elected officers of the board. Among these were Mrs. Julia T. 
Morton and Mrs. Martha F. McNair and Messrs. Irwin Belk, F. P. Bo- 
denheimer, B. Irvin Boyle, Philip G. Carson, Wayne A. Corpening, 
Walter R. Davis, James E. Holmes, Robert L. Jones, Samuel H. Poole, 
David J. Whichard II, and Governor James E. Holshouser, Jr. One mem- 
ber of the board, Mr. William A. Dees, Jr., attracted national attention 
for his leadership. He was greatly respected by the Association of Gov- 
erning Boards, which gave him its most prestigious award and elected 
him to its Board of Directors. 

Following the consent decree in June 1981, the prestige of the board 
rose sharply, and its success in achieving a settlement was acclaimed in the 
state press. When the decree was allowed to stand by the U.S. Supreme 
Court on 21 February 1984, the long struggle of the board was finally 
vindicated. 

The board received much favorable comment in 1979 when, under the 
leadership of Mrs. Adelaide F. Holderness, it authorized a distinguished 
award to be given to persons who met the following criterion: "Resolved 
that the Board of Governors of The University of North Carolina hereby 
creates an award to be known as The University Award. The Award shall 
recognize illustrious service to higher education. It shall be the highest 
distinction of this nature that the University bestows" (12 January 1979). 
It chose as the model for the medal that it awards the first seal of the uni- 
versity, which was selected by a committee of three in 1791 and had been 
in disuse for almost a century. The seal showed the face of Apollo, god of 
radiance and light and music and poetry and symbol of the perfect form 
of human being. Behind the face of Apollo were the rays of the rising 
sun. In selecting a symbol appropriate for its highest honor to be known 
as "The University Award," the board was fortunate to have this original 
seal that had from the beginning contained sixteen rays which could now 
symbolize the sixteen constituent institutions. 

The University Award has been given annually since 1980. Recipients 
have been: Mr. Victor S. Bryant (posthumous) and Mr. Archie K. Davis 
in 1980; Dr. W. Dallas Herring, Mr. George Watts Hill, Dr. Prezell R. 
Robinson, and Mr. Thomas J. White, Jr., in 1981; Miss Bonnie E. Cone, 



[336] The Multicampus University oj North Carolina 

Mr. Gordon Gray, and Mr. Frank H. Kenan in 1982; Mr. Hargrove 
Bowles, Jr., Mrs. Elizabeth Scott Carrington, and Mr. Henry Armfield 
Foscue in 1983; Mrs. Adelaide F. Holderness and Mr. Howard Holderness 
in 1984; and President William Clyde Friday and Mrs. Ida Howell Friday 
in 1985. 

The award dinner and accompanying publicity each year tended to re- 
mind the public of past glories and the hope of future achievements. 

After 1980 a number of troublesome issues, some of which were di- 
visive, began to accumulate. The legislature continued to increase aid to 
private colleges. Some members of the board attempted to lobby them on 
this matter and were rebuffed. The board was relieved in 1983 of any fur- 
ther responsibility for advising the General Assembly on this subject. 

There was some frustration expressed by a few members of the board 
with the General Assembly because of the addition to the Appropriations 
Act of capital improvements that had not been listed in the board's sched- 
ule of priorities. 

At one point in the 1983 session of the General Assembly, a bill was 
introduced into the Senate to shorten terms of members of the Board of 
Governors. This was opposed by Mr. William A. Dees, Jr., and some of 
his associates when they appeared before the Senate Committee on Rules 
and Operations. President Friday conferred with representatives of the 
leadership of the Senate in private and appealed to them not to carry 
through with the proposed legislation. 

There was from time to time some discontent in the board with the 
practices followed in developing budget requests and in the setting of cer- 
tain administrative salaries, even though these practices had been sanc- 
tioned by the board from its beginning. This discontent in later years 
sometimes produced sharp differences of opinion in committees and in 
the board meetings. 

Other issues that disturbed some members of the board were the pros- 
pect of declining enrollments in the black colleges, the lengthy appeal 
process of the consent decree, the tangled fiscal affairs of North Carolina 
Agricultural and Technical State University, the chancellor situation at 
North Carolina Central University, the increasing demand for remedial 
education, the salary freeze of 1984, the pressure from some legislative 
leaders for the university to pay more attention to "meeting the needs of 
southwestern North Carolina," and the national discontent with the 
effects of big-time athletics on higher education. 

As early as 1983 there was speculation in the university, in the Board of 
Governors, and in the state press respecting President Friday's plans for 
the future. He was under intense pressure from many quarters to enter 
the senatorial race of 1986. He refused to discuss the subject and empha- 



The Board of Governors, igj2-ig86 [337] 

sized that his first obligation was to the university. He did let it be known 
that despite the change which had been made in the law extending the 
retirement age to seventy, he intended to retire at age sixty-five. It was his 
firm commitment to abide by the same regulation that he had applied 
when chancellors had been required to retire at age sixty-five. 

This resolve on the part of President Friday created much interest 
among members of the board. His decision meant that he would remain 
no longer than 1986. 

An election for chairman and other officers of the board was required 
to be held in accordance with the Code at the July 1984 meeting. The 
chairman, Mr. John R. Jordan, Jr. , was approaching the completion of his 
fourth year and was not eligible for reelection. The new chairman, it was 
generally conceded, would head the committee to make the search for the 
next president and appoint the members that would assist him in the 
search. This made the position of chairman more attractive than it had 
been in any of the previous years when there had been consensus and 
election by acclamation. 

The first indication in a meeting of the Board of Governors of the inter- 
est in the coming election was voiced by Mr. Asa T. Spaulding, Jr., at the 
end of the 13 April 1984 meeting, when he asked Chairman Jordan for a 
general explanation of plans for electing officers of the board. Chairman 
Jordan responded that the election would be held in accordance with the 
provisions of the Code at thejuly meeting, and he explained that all mem- 
bers of the board were eligible for election as chairman with the excep- 
tion of himself and that all members of the board were eligible for elec- 
tion as vice-chairman and secretary. 

At the May 1984 meeting of the board, the retiring members of the fac- 
ulty were entertained. The O. Max Gardner Award was given to Dr. Viv- 
ian T. Stannett of North Carolina State University and to Dr. James A. 
Bryan II of the School of Medicine of the University of North Carolina at 
Chapel Hill. The election of officers did not come up; however, it was a 
lively topic for conversation among the members of the board. 

The Board of Governors met at the university at Wilmington on 8 June 
1984. Mr. R. Phillip Haire commented on the provision in the Code that 
called for the election of three officers — chairman, vice-chairman, and 
secretary — every two years. He noted that the Code did not prescribe a 
method for conducting the election, and he presented a resolution to 
govern the method of nominating and electing the officers. It called for a 
nomination ballot to be prepared containing the names of all members of 
the board except that of Chairman Jordan who was ineligible for reelec- 
tion. The ballot was to be distributed to each member who would cast 
one vote for chairman from the list. Any member who received a ma- 



[338] The Multicampus University oj North Carolina 

jority of the votes would be elected chairman. After the first ballot, if 
no one received a majority, and there were three or more candidates re- 
maining, the name of the member having the smallest number of votes 
would be dropped from the list. The following points of his proposal were 
called into question as possibly violating the open-meetings law: "The 
number of votes received by any nominated member shall not be an- 
nounced; and election shall be by secret ballot." Mr. Haire proposed that 
the vice-chairman and the secretary be elected by the same procedure. 

At the close of the meeting, Mr. Philip G. Carson, chairman of the 
Committee on University Governance, reported that in a short meeting 
of the committee it had been decided to request the attorney general's 
opinion concerning Mr. Haire's proposal for the election of officers of the 
board. Chairman Jordan asked that when the attorney general's opinion 
was received copies of it be sent to all members of the board. It was clear 
to many that a power struggle was brewing. 

At the 27 July 1984, meeting of the Board of Governors preceding the 
election of officers, two members of the board, Mr. Asa T. Spaulding, 
Jr., and Charles Z. Flack, Jr., asked permission to make statements. Evi- 
dently they anticipated a divisive event. Mr. Spaulding urged that "what- 
ever we do today . . . we make sure that we can come back together to be 
able to work conscientiously and harmoniously." Mr. Flack made a plea 
that the members "make our University atmosphere as conducive as hu- 
manly possible to the frank and open discussion of ideas." On motion of 
Dr. E. B. Turner and seconded by Mr. Robert L. Jones, the board voted 
to take a five-minute recess. When they came back together, Mr. Haire 
moved that a suggested procedure, which he had sent to the members of 
the board, be adopted. Mr. Flack seconded the motion. The procedure 
did not call for a nominating ballot, and it did not call for secrecy which 
the attorney general's office had ruled violated the state open meeting law. 
After some parliamentary maneuvering, Mr. Haire's motion was adopted. 

The chairman then opened the floor for nominations for the office of 
chairman. Mr. William A. Dees, Jr., nominated Mr. Wayne A. Corpen- 
ing. Mr. Walter R. Davis nominated Mr. Philip G. Carson. On a motion 
from Mr. David J. Whichard II, the board voted to close the nominations. 

The tellers reported that Mr. Carson had been elected chairman and 
announced the vote of each member. The result was sixteen for Mr. Car- 
son, fifteen for Mr. Corpening. One member, Dr. J. Earl Danieley, was 
away in Europe. Mr. Corpening moved that Mr. Carson be elected unan- 
imously, and the motion carried. Chairman Jordan then opened the floor 
for nominations for the office of vice-chairman. Mr. William A. Johnson 
nominated Mr. Jacob H. Froelich, Jr. Mr. J. Aaron Prevost nominated 
Mr. Asa T. Spaulding, Jr. Mr. F. P. Bodenheimer nominated Governor 



The Board of Governors, igy2-ig86 [339] 

James E. Holshouser, Jr. On the first ballot Mr. Froelich received fifteen 
votes, Governor Holshouser, eight, and Mr. Spaulding, eight. Because 
there was a tie for the second place, a second vote was held with Mr. 
Froelich receiving thirteen votes, Governor Holshouser, twelve, and Mr. 
Spaulding, six. On the third ballot Mr. Froelich received seventeen votes, 
and Governor Holshouser received fourteen. Governor Holshouser moved 
that Mr. Froelich be elected unanimously, and the motion carried. The 
floor was opened for nominations for the office of secretary. Mr. Froelich 
nominated Mrs. Geneva J. Bowe. Dr. Turner moved that the nomination 
be closed and that Mrs. Bowe be elected by acclamation; the motion 
carried. 

Tribute was paid to the retiring officers of the board, and Chairman 
Carson expressed the high regard in which he held all members of the 
board, including those who had supported other candidates for chair- 
man, and he paid special tribute to President Friday. It was evident, how- 
ever, that there had been a significant shift in the control of the board. 

At the 14 September 1984 meeting of the board, on motion of Mr. F. P. 
Bodenheimer, seconded by Mr. John E. Davenport, it went into execu- 
tive session immediately after convening and: "The Chair reminded the 
members that in recent months the President had repeatedly stated he felt 
the time was drawing close when he should consider retirement. Board 
members said they could understand the President's desire but hoped his 
service could be continued as long as possible. Following the discussion, 
the Board agreed that in public session, it would adopt a resolution re- 
questing the President to continue in office until July 1, 1986." 

Later in the meeting, Mr. William A. Johnson moved "that the Presi- 
dent be requested to continue in office until July 1, 1986." Mr. Boyles 
seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. 

The president responded "that he was pleased with this request and 
that, since this was what the Board wished him to do, he and his family 
would do so." 

The Board of Governors convened at 4:30 p.m. on 30 November 1984, 
at the Pine Needles Lodges and Country Club in Southern Pines and con- 
tinued the meeting on 1 December until 12:35 PM - It was attended by all 
members of the board with the exception of Mr. F. P. Bodenheimer. The 
purpose of the meeting was to discuss the procedure for carrying on the 
search process for a new president. Portions of the discussion were led 
by Mr. William A. Dees, Jr., Dr. J. Earl Danieley, and President Friday; 
and other parts were conducted in small groups of seven or eight mem- 
bers each. 

At the end of the session, Chairman Carson gave the following sum- 
mary of what he felt to be the conclusions that the board had reached: 



[34°] The Multicampus University of North Carolina 

i . That the search committee be made up of Board members 
only, appointed by the Chairman, and that it have no fewer 
than nine members. It seemed that, while some wanted a larger 
committee, the sense of the Board as a whole was for a smaller 
committee. 

2. That the Board wants an advisory committee and that that com- 
mittee should probably have representatives from the faculty, chan- 
cellors, students and general public. 

3. That the Board members who serve on the committee be pledged 
to total secrecy and that the committee conduct its business apart 
from the General Administration offices and have an independent 
staff. 

4. That the committee recommend three to five final candidates for 
consideration by the Board as a whole. 

5. That as a part of the process campuses of other universities be 
visited. 

6. That a set of criteria for selection of a new President be devel- 
oped and proposed by the search committee and adopted by the 
whole Board. 

7. That the Board and the general public be regularly advised of the 
progress being made and that the Board be advised in detail. 

8. That the foregoing ideas be incorporated in a draft of a plan to be 
mailed to the members of the Board by the Chairman prior to the 
next meeting of the Board and that this plan be considered by the 
Board at its next meeting. 

The board adopted the following motion: "In seeking the next Presi- 
dent of the University, the Chairman of the Board should be the Chair- 
man of the Search Committee, the other members of the committee 
should be appointed by the Chairman and the Chairman should be the 
sole spokesman for the Board in the search process." 

In another motion, the board voted as follows: "The Chairman be au- 
thorized to appear at such times and places as he might determine appro- 
priate and make it clear to any of the University's constituencies, or to 
others, that the Board will support President Friday fully while he is in 
office, that the next President will continue to carry out the same policies 
and that there will be no gap in authority during this transition period," 

In a public session that followed, the two motions quoted above were 
adopted. 

At the meeting of the Board of Governors on 1 1 January 1985 there was 



The Board of Governors, 1972-1986 [34 1 ] 

a discussion in executive session of the selection process for the next 
president and in the public session, the board adopted a document en- 
titled, "Procedures of the Board of Governors for Selection of the Presi- 
dent of The University." The following is a summary of its provisions: 

1. A committee consisting often persons, all members of the Board 
of Governors, with the chairman of the board serving as chairman 
of the committee and authorized to appoint its members. 

2. An advisory committee consisting of not more than sixteen per- 
sons composed as follows: four chancellors selected by the chair- 
man of the board; four faculty members including the chairman of 
the Faculty Assembly and three appointed by the chairman of the 
board, the president of the North Carolina Association of Student 
Governments, and seven additional persons appointed by the 
chairman of the board to include representatives of the institu- 
tional boards of trustees, the institutional alumni associations and 
other citizens. 

3. Staff to include an executive officer and other personnel with ade- 
quate office space and equipment and secure files. 

4. A budget prepared by the Search Committee and borne by the 
General Administration. 

5. Provision for a series of public meetings with special invitations 
to faculty, staff, students, alumni, and other interested persons. 

6. After the public hearings, the development, with the assistance of 
the advisory committee, of the criteria to be used in selecting the 
next president. 

7. The establishment of a timetable as a guide to the board in the 
search process. 

8. Confidentiality: 

Meetings of the search committee shall normally be held in 
executive session under the provisions of the Open Meetings 
Law. Whenever the committee is meeting in executive session 
no person who is not a member of the committee or of its staff 
shall be permitted to attend without the express invitation of 
the chairman. 

It is recognized that confidentiality is vital for the success of 
the selection process, and the members of the Board of Gover- 
nors, the members of the advisory committee and the members 
of the staff of the selection committee shall be reminded of the 
absolute necessity for confidentiality. 



[34 2 ] The Multicampus University of North Carolina 

9. Wide publicity to the Search Committee's invitation for nomina- 
tions stating "the University is an equal-opportunity employer." 

10. Involvement of the Board of Governors in the search process: 

The chairman of the search committee shall give regular re- 
ports to the Board of Governors on. the work of the committee. 
It is anticipated that, from time to time, members of the board 
who are not members of the search committee will be asked to 
undertake specific tasks in connection with the search process 
in addition to aiding in the development of the criteria. 

After completion of its search, the search committee shall 
bring its nominee to the Board of Governors for its approval or 
for its instruction to search further. 

11. Publicity: 

The chairman of the Board of Governors, in accordance with 
a resolution adopted by the board, shall be the sole spokesman 
for the board and for the search committee throughout the 
search process. The chairman shall also be responsible for keep- 
ing the governor of the state and other key officials informed as 
the search process is carried out. 

12. Salary and Perquisites: 

The search committee shall examine the salary, housing and 
other perquisites that go with the position of president and 
shall make such recommendations to the Board of Governors as 
it may deem appropriate. 

The Board of Governors, at its meeting on 8 February 1985, discussed 
the Presidential Search Committee in executive session. When the public 
session was resumed, the board voted to increase the size of the Presi- 
dential Search Committee from ten to eleven, and Chairman Carson ex- 
pressed his appreciation to the board for expanding the committee and 
stated that Mr. Jacob H. Froelich, Jr., vice-chairman of the board, would 
be appointed to this new position on the committee. 

In the executive session of the Board of Governors on 8 March 1985 
Chairman Carson reviewed for the board the work of the Presidential 
Search Committee and announced that the committee consisted of the 
following persons: 

Philip G. Carson, Chairman 
Wayne A. Corpening 
Walter R. Davis 
William A. Dees, Jr. 
Jacob H. Froelich, Jr. 



The Board of Governors, igj2-ig86 [343] 

James E. Holshouser, Jr. 
William A. Johnson 
John R. Jordan, Jr. 
Mrs. Julia T. Morton 
Louis T. Randolph 
David J. Whichard II 

Five members of the Search Committee had opposed the chairman in 
the election held on 27 July 1984. 

Chairman Carson also announced that all members of the Advisory 
Committee had been appointed and stated that it consisted of the follow- 
ing persons: 

George M. Wood, Chairman 

Mrs. Doris Betts (Faculty Assembly) 

Dr. Aaron Brownstein (Faculty Assembly) 

Mrs. Faye A. Broyhill 

Kenneth Cagle (Student) 

FeltonJ. Capel 

Ben T. Craig 

Archie K. Davis 

Chancellor Christopher C. Fordham III 

Chancellor E. K. Fretwell, Jr. 

Dr. Elwanda Ingram (Faculty Assembly) 

Claude S. Ramsey 

Dr. James LeRoy Smith (Faculty Assembly) 

C. Dixon Spangler, Jr. 

Chancellor William H. Wagoner 

Chancellor LeRoy T. Walker 

The chairman reported that the Search Committee and Advisory Com- 
mittee had met together on 7 March and made plans for a series of hear- 
ings on campuses across the state. The purpose of these hearings was to 
give persons in the institutions and the public-at-large a chance to say 
where they believed the university should go in the years ahead and 
"what kind of leadership should be sought for those years." He also re- 
viewed with the board a proposed budget for the Search Committee and 
the advisory committee. 

In the period following the March meeting of the board, the Presi- 
dential Search Committee accompanied by its advisory committee, held 
public meetings at six locations across the state. The committee also re- 
ceived many communications from persons knowledgeable about and in- 
terested in higher education. It met in joint sessions with the advisory 



[344] The Multicampus University of North Carolina 

committee to develop a set of criteria to guide it in the selection process 
The results of its activities were reported to the Board of Governors on 14 
June. Its criteria revealed that it was looking for a person with the follow- 
ing attributes: 

A person who has an education and management philosophy consis- 
tent with the goals of the University. 

A person with sufficient administrative experience and training in a 
higher education setting or elsewhere to be able to lead and effectively 
manage a complex public system of higher education and to attract 
qualified men and women to carry out the policies and programs and 
achieve the goals of the University. 

A person who is committed to the worth of the individual and who 
values that individual's freedom of inquiry and expression. 

A person who can establish and maintain effective relationships with 
the executive and legislative branches of state government on behalf of 
the Board of Governors. 

A person who has a genuine appreciation for the variety of tasks 
which are within the University's area of responsibility and who can 
interpret and communicate them to the people of the State. 

A person who understands the missions and roles of the constituent 
institutions of the University and who will delegate responsibility not 
inconsistent with the mission of the University when such delegation 
is appropriate and within the policies adopted by the Board of 
Governors. 

A person who can and will appreciate the diversity of the people, 
traditions, and institutions of the State of North Carolina. 

A person who is sensitive to the changing of the economy of North 
Carolina and who can guide the University in its responsibility to 
deal effectively with economic matters. 

A person who is of unquestionable integrity, who possesses good 
humor and who has the intellect, vision and energy necessary to 
lead the University as it responds to the changing needs of North 
Carolina. 

A person who will commit his or her talents and energies to giving 
the University the loyalty, the leadership and the guidance it needs 
in order to provide the State of North Carolina the finest system of 
public higher education possible consistent with its needs and its 
resources. 



The Board of Governors, 1972-1986 [345] 

The Search Committee moved its office from the General Administra- 
tion Building to the North Carolina Microelectronics Center in the Re- 
search Triangle on 1 May, where it expected to conduct its activities in an 
atmosphere conducive to confidentiality. Requests for nominations and 
advertisements announcing the availability of the position had been sent 
out early in March, and applications and nominations were received al- 
most daily. 

Campuses of five major state multicampus systems were visited by 
teams composed of members of the Presidential Search Committee and 
other members of the Board of Governors. The institutions visited were 
the State University of New York at Albany, University of Texas at Aus- 
tin, University of Missouri at Columbia, University of California at Ir- 
vine and at Los Angeles, and the University of Wisconsin at Madison. 
Ten members of the Search Committee and seventeen other members of 
the board were involved in the visitations between 30 May and 7 June 1985. 

After the visitations, a curtain of silence surrounded the activities of the 
Presidential Search Committee. It is known that almost 1 50 nominations 
and applications were received by the committee and that the committee 
was active in examining the personal data furnished by the candidates. 
After the adoption of the criteria, the advisory committee had no further 
active participation, and some members of that group, especially the fac- 
ulty, were disappointed. From time to time there were rumors, but no 
substantial information about the search process was released until a deci- 
sion was ready for presentation to the full Board of Governors. Some 
members of the board who were not on the committee expressed dissatis- 
faction with the slowness of the process. 

During the period between the beginning of the search and the election 
of the new president, the normal activities of the university proceeded, 
and the board was involved in several interests that kept it occupied. 
Among these were the relationship of the university to the North Caro- 
lina School of Science and Mathematics, the organization of the North 
Carolina Center for the Advancement of Teaching to be located at Western 
Carolina University, and the Board of Governors Task Force on the 
Preparation of Teachers. 

A serious crisis had arisen nationally in intercollegiate athletics. Presi- 
dent Friday and several of the chancellors were involved in supporting 
Proposition 48, which had been designed to improve academic standards 
and was being considered by the National Collegiate Athletic Associa- 
tion. It was the opinion of Chairman Carson that the time had come 
when the athletic policies of the constituent institutions should be stud- 
ied. On 8 March 1985 he appointed for this assignment a committee 
of twelve, composed of Mesdames Terresa T. Bullock and Joan S. Fox; 
Messrs. Samuel H. Poole, chairman, F. P. Bodenheimer, John E. Daven- 



[346] The Multicampus University oj North Carolina 

port, Charles Z. Flack, Jr., James E. Holmes, Reginald McCoy, Maceo A. 
Sloan, Asa T. Spaulding, Jr., William K. Woltz, and Dr. J. Earl Danieley. 
It made an extended investigation with the staff assistance of Associate 
Vice President for Academic Affairs Arthur Padilla. The committee rec- 
ommended to the Board on n October 1985, that chancellors be re- 
quired to submit annual reports to their boards of trustees and to the 
president of the university, containing detailed information on admis- 
sions policies, the SAT scores and high-school grade-point averages of 
student athletes, graduation and progression rates, and other matters. 
The committee also recommended the rejection of the eligibility index to 
determine freshman participation in intercollegiate athletics which would 
have allowed freshmen with marginal academic records to play. There 
were a number of other recommendations concerning admissions policy, 
the number of recruits, control of drugs and gambling, and the pressure 
under which the coaches worked. 

It was not the purpose of the Board of Governors to rescind the delega- 
tion of authority over intercollegiate athletics that had been made to the 
chancellors and the boards of trustees on 7july 1972. At a later date, how- 
ever, the board did instruct the chancellors to support the more rigorous 
standards for intercollegiate athletics that were proposed to the National 
Collegiate Athletic Association. 

By January 1986 the interest in the selection of the president had 
reached such a high pitch that it was obvious that the decision could not 
be postponed much longer. On the morning of 3 1 January, the News and 
Observer reported that it had learned who the new president of the univer- 
sity would be and revealed his name. The reporter had questioned Chair- 
man Carson, who would not officially divulge the name of the Presi- 
dential Search Committee's choice. He did admit that the committee had 
concluded its twelve-months search and settled on a nominee in a tele- 
phone conference on Wednesday, 29january. Chairman Carson was quoted 
as stating, "The Committee is in complete agreement." He continued, 
"It will make a full report to the Board and ask the Board to consider the 
report, and the Board will then have to decide what it's going to do." 

A special meeting of the Board of Governors was held in the General 
Administration Building at 9:30 a.m. on Friday, 31 January. After a lengthy 
discussion in executive session in which the committee informed the full 
board of the process by which it had made its choice, the doors of the 
board room were thrown open, and in the public session Mr. C. Dixon 
Spangler, Jr., was elected by unanimous vote the president of the Univer- 
sity of North Carolina. Mr. and Mrs. Spangler were presented to the 
board, and following a dignified and gracious acceptance the meeting ad- 
journed, leaving Mr. Spangler to face the press. 

Mr. Spangler, who is fifty-three years old, is a native of Charlotte, 



The Board of Governors, 1972-1986 [347] 

North Carolina, where he has been connected with C. D. Spangler Con- 
struction Company and Golden Eagle Industries, Inc., as president of 
each. He has also had extensive interests in the Bank of North Carolina of 
which he was chairman of the board. When it was merged into North 
Carolina National Bank in 1983, he became a director of that institution. 
He resigned all of his business connections except the directorship of an 
out r of-state corporation after his election. 

Mr. Spangler attended the Charlotte public schools, Woodberry For- 
est, and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill where he re- 
ceived a B.S. in business administration in 1954. He attended Harvard 
Business School for two years and received an M.B.A. in 1956. During 
the next two years he served in the U.S. Army. 

Mr. Spangler was married to Miss Meredith Riggs of Bronxville, New 
York, on 25 June i960. Mrs. Spangler has an impressive record in her own 
right. She graduated from Wellesley College with a B.A. in 1959, at- 
tended the London School of Economics and Political Science in 1959- 
60, and later received the master's degree from the University of North 
Carolina at Charlotte. Mr. and Mrs. Spangler have two daughters — 
Anna, who graduated from Wellesley in 1984 and Abigail who will be a 
senior at Wellesley in 1986-87. 

Mr. Spangler has been involved in civic and religious affairs for many 
years. He has served on the board of trustees of a number of organizations 
including Crozer Theological Seminary. He was a member and vice chair- 
man of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education from 1972-76. 
He is a member of the Board of Directors of Union Theological Semi- 
nary and was a member of the Board of Visitors of the University of 
North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Mr. Spangler has been active in the Bap- 
tist Church. At the time of his election, he was chairman of the North 
Carolina State Board of Education and since 1982, when he assumed that 
post, has been working with the university to improve teacher education. 
In 1985 Queens College awarded him the Doctor of Humane Letters. 

The following account in the 8 February 1986 Charlotte Observer is a 
brief sketch of how the sentiment in the Search Committee gradually 
crystalized in favor of President Spangler: 

Spangler was nominated for the university system presidency last 
spring. He told the committee he didn't want to be considered. 

"He indicated he was very flattered but he said he didn't want the 
job," said Phil Carson, an Asheville lawyer who chaired the search 
committee and chairs the board of governors. "He later said it had 
weighed heavily on his mind and that he wanted to be considered." 

By then it was late summer. Spangler sent his resume to the 
committee. 



[348] The Multicampus University of North Carolina 

From the beginning, committee members said, Spangler was a 
strong contender. Even before his first interview, every committee 
member knew him. For example, Vice Chairman Jacob Froelich of 
High Point went to Woodberry Forest prep school in Virginia with 
Spangler. Julia Morton of Linville has known Spangler about five 
years, because the Spanglers often vacation in Linville. 

"The chairman had asked us to try not to form an opinion before 
we had heard from everybody," Morton said. "But I was already an 
enormous admirer of what he had accomplished on the board of 
education. And he was extremely articulate and sincere." 

Froelich said Spangler showed a strong understanding that North 
Carolina "is a complex state. It's not one state; it's really five or seven 
states." 

"When you're dealing with a statewide institution, you have to 
have some feeling for the diversity of the state," Froelich said. "In his 
business interests, he has strong roots in Cleveland County. And he 
lives in Mecklenburg. It just came through that he has a strong feel- 
ing for North Carolina." 

William Dees, a committee member from Goldsboro, said Spang- 
ler's in-state business and political experience was an advantage. "He 
knows the eastern economy and the western economy. He knows the 
function of the Research Triangle," Dees said. "It's a great advantage 
to have a person in that position who already has a grasp of the state's 
economic situation." 

Spangler's first meeting with the committee came about midway 
through interviews with 16 finalists. All other finalists were univer- 
sity presidents or administrators. 

Though committee members were impressed by Spangler's intel- 
lect and energy, they did not immediately consider him the front- 
runner. 

"I would not say it was an event — 'Bang! He's the one!'" said 
William Johnson, a committee member from Lillington. "It was 
something which just evolved." 

But, said Holshouser, "As the sifting process took place, he just 
gradually got strong and stronger." 

Spangler was invited back to the Microelectronics Center for a 
second interview January 24. That interview, Carson said, "con- 
firmed earlier impressions." 

A key question, said search committee member Louis Randolph 
of Washington, N.C., was Spangler's lack of academic experience. 

"He said, 'We've got 16 chancellors and thousands of employees in 
the university system, and if they do their job, it's going to make it 
that much easier for the president to do his job,'" Randolph said. 



The Board of Governors, igy2-ig86 [349] 

The interview continued at dinner, with Spangler's wife, Meredith. 
Though not paramount, Meredith Spangler's resume — Wellesley 
College, the London School of Economics — was a factor. Spangler 
had submitted his wife's resume with his own. 

Comments in the North Carolina Press respecting Mr. Spangler's elec- 
tion were, in general, favorable with an occasional reservation because 
of his lack of academic experience. His record as chairman of the State 
Board of Education, where under his leadership some promising plans 
for the future of public education were taking shape, indicated to many 
observers that he should have a similar record in higher education. 

Mr. Spangler moved into an office in the General Administration 
Building and started studying the intricacies of the complex job that con- 
fronted him. He observed President Friday and conferred with him fre- 
quently. President Friday had continued his activities in his usual manner 
throughout the-long wait for the naming of his successor. In the mean- 
time he was the recipient of more awards and accolades. In October 1985 
he received the distinguished Service Award for Lifetime Activities at the 
Miami, Florida, meeting of the American Council on Education. This is 
perhaps the most prestigious academic award made in the United States. 

In December he and Mrs. Friday received the University Award from 
the Board of Governors. The citation read: 

Gifted leader and guiding spirit of The University of North Caro- 
lina for three decades, william Friday has been a determined advo- 
cate of quiet persuasion, the architect of change without chaos. The 
fruit of his lifework is the educational opportunity provided by this 
University to generations of men and women. Their achievements 
will endure as his greatest legacy. 

Laboring with wisdom and courage to keep higher education 
democratic and humane without forsaking high standards or aca- 
demic rigor, william Friday stands for all time in the tradition of 
Davie and the Founders — arising from the people to build a great 
University that serves all the people. The Board of Governors proudly 
and humbly honors itself by honoring him. 

Dr. Clark Kerr, one of the nation's most distinguished leaders in higher 
education, paid tribute to President Friday at the University Award din- 
ner. After recalling some of the honors and offices President Friday had 
held, Dr. Kerr concluded, "Bill Friday has established here a system of 
higher education that works . . . The North Carolina system that Bill has 
been so instrumental in creating has become one of the two or three best 
models for the nation as a whole, and perhaps the best of them all." 

On 3 April 1986, President Friday was named the third permanent 
member of the Research Triangle Institute's Board of Governors. 



[35°] The Multicampus University of North Carolina 

President Friday had said many times that he would like to be relieved 
of his responsibilities as soon as his successor was chosen. Furthermore, it 
seemed to him desirable for Mr. Spangler to guide the university's budget 
requests in the June 1986 session of the General Assembly and to assume 
active responsibility for the university as soon as possible. It was no sur- 
prise when President Friday submitted his resignation to the Board of 
Governors on 14 February, effective 1 March 1986. The board elected him 
president emeritus and special consultant to the president until 1 July. 

At 11:00 a.m. on 28 February 1986, members of the press gathered 
from across the state and packed the Executive Conference Room on the 
second floor of the General Administration Building for a farewell con- 
versation with their old friend, Bill Friday, on his last day as president of 
the University of North Carolina. It was a genial and nostalgic occasion. 
Just three decades previously, on 1 March 1956, he had become acting 
president at the beginning of a new era for the university. 

On 1 March 1986, President C. D. Spangler, Jr., assumed office as the 
fourth president of the multicampus university and fourteenth president 
of the University of North Carolina, and, thus began another new era. 



Bibliography 



BOOKS AND BULLETINS 

Califano, Joseph A., Jr. Governing America: An Insider's Report from the White 
House and the Cabinet. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1981. 

Dentler, Robert A., et al. University on Trial: The Case of the University of North 
Carolina. Cambridge, Mass.: Abt Books, 1983. 

Ehle, John. The Free Men. New York: Harper & Row, 1965. 

Gardner, John W., Atwell, Robert H., and Robert D. Berdahl. Cooperation and 
Conflict: The Public and Private Sectors in Higher Education. Association of Gov- 
erning Boards, Special Report. 1985. 

Governor's Commission on Education Beyond the High School. The Report of 
the Governor's Commission on Education Beyond the High School. 1962. • 

The President's Committee on Education Beyond the High School. Second Re- 
port to the President. Washington, D.C., July 1957. 

United States Commission on Civil Rights. The Black/White Colleges: Dis- 
mantling the Dual System of Higher Education. Clearinghouse Publication 66. 
April 198 1. 

Wilson, Louis R. The University of North Carolina under Consolidation, 1931- 1963, 
History and Appraisal. Consolidated Office, University of North Carolina, 
Chapel Hill. 1964. 

. The Research Triangle of North Carolina. Chapel Hill: Colonial Press, 

1967. 



STUDIES, REPORTS, AND 

OFFICIAL PUBLICATIONS OF THE 

UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA 

Academic Program Development Procedures. August 1976, rev. 1983 and 1985. 

Academic Program Inventory. October 1974, rev. July 1978. 

Academic Program Inventory, Private Senior Colleges and Universities. May 1979. 

Administrative Directory of the University of North Carolina. 1977-. 

Advance Placement Policies of Nursing in North Carolina. June 1975. 

Allied Health Education: Transfer of Credit, Recommendations of the North Carolina 
Articulation Project. October 1974. 

Annual Reports under the Consent Decree Entered on 17 July 1981. 5 reports. De- 
cember 1 98 1 -December 1985. 

Board of Governors Newsletter (changed to Quarterly in January 1984). July 1977- 

[35i] 



[35 2 ] Bibliography 



The Board of Governors of the University of North Carolina and the State 

Board of Education. The North Carolina State Plan for the Further Elimination of 
Racial Duality in the Public Post-Secondary Education Systems. Filed by the Gov- 
ernor of North Carolina with the Office for Civil Rights, U.S. Department of 
Health, Education and Welfare, Washington, D.C. 8 February 1974. 

Budget Requests of the Board of Governors of the University of North Carolina since 
16 November 1973. 

The Class of '74: Early Career of Graduates from the Sixteen Campuses of the Univer- 
sity of North Carolina. November 1976. 

The Code. July 1975. 4 revisions, 1976- 1986. 

College Enrollments and Projections in North Carolina, igj^,-ig8o. May 1975. 

Comments on John Gamble's Memorandum about the Board of Governors' 
"Report on Faculty Workload and Academic Tenure in the University of 
North Carolina." 1979. 

Comments on the North Carolina State Plan, Phase II. 5 December 1977. 

Comparative Study of Baccalaureate and Masters Program Offerings: North Carolina 
Agricultural and Technical University, University of North Carolina at Greens- 
boro, Winston-Salem State University and North Carolina Central Univer- 
sity, North Carolina State University, University of North Carolina at Chapel 
Hill. December 1978. 

A Comparative Study of the Five Historically Black Constituent Institutions of the 
University of North Carolina. 11 June 1976. 

Contract Programs in Dentistry, Medicine, Optometry, Veterinary Medicine at Out-of- 
State Institutions for North Carolina Students. August 1977, rev. 1978 and 1979. 

Contract Programs in Dentistry, Medicine, Optometry at Out-of State Institutions for 
North Carolina Students. August 1981, rev. 1982, 1983, and 1984. 

Degree Programs in Engineering in the University of North Carolina: North Carolina 
Agricultural and Technical State University, North Carolina State University, Uni- 
versity of North Carolina at Charlotte. December 1978. 

Delegations of Duty and Authority to Boards of Trustees. 7 July 1972. 

The Education and Training of Teachers and Other Educational Personnel in the Uni- 
versity of North Carolina. Report no. 1, May 1977; no. 2, October 1977; no. 3, 
October 1977; no. 4, November 1979; no. 5, May 1981. 

Educational Opportunities: The University of North Carolina. 1978. 

The Expansion of the East Carolina University School of Medicine: Recommenda- 
tions of the President to the Committee on Educational Planning, Policies, 
and Programs and the Committee on Budget and Finance. Board of Gover- 
nors. 8 November 1974. 

Facilities Inventory and Utilization Study. Issued annually since 1976. 

Friday, William. The President's Report, The University of North Carolina. Issued 
annually, 1958-59 through 1984-85. 

Graduate and Professional Education in the University of North Carolina. February 
1982, rev. 1983, 1984, and 1985. 

Graduate Education in Southeastern North Carolina. 13 December 1976. 

Guidelines for Interpretation and Implementation: Rules and Standards for Licensing 
Non-Public Education Institutions to Confer Degrees. February 1976. 



Bibliography [353] 



Guidelines for Transfer: Recommendations of the Joint Committee on College Transfer 
Students. October 1973, rev. 1977 and 1980. 

Health Professions Education Program Review: Baccalaureate Programs, 1977-1982. 
September 1977. 

Health Professions Education Program Review: Graduate Programs, 1978-1983. Sep- 
tember 1978. 

Higher Education in North Carolina. Issued annually. 

Home Economics Program Review. April 1980. 

Implementation of the Revised North Carolina State Plan for the Further Elimination 
of Racial Duality in the Public Post-Secondary Education Systems: A Report from 
the Honorable James E. Holshouser, Jr., Governor of North Carolina. 18 Au- 
gust 1975. 

The Inauguration of William Clyde Friday as President of the Consolidated University 
of North Carolina. Raleigh. 8 May 1957. 

Intercollegiate Athletics in Fifteen Institutions of the University of North Carolina. 
11 October 1985. 

Long- Range Planning. 1978-1983, December 1975; 1976-1981, April 1976; 
1977- 1982, November 1977; 1980- 1985, February 1981; 1982- 1987, Septem- 
ber 1983; 1984- 1989, October 1985. 

A Manual to Assist the Public Higher Education Institutions of North Carolina in the 
Matter of Student Residence Classification for Tuition Purposes. July 1975; revised 
annually through August 1985. 

A New Law School for North Carolina? April 1976. 

North Carolina's Community Service and Continuing Education Program under Title I 
of the Higher Education Act of 1976: 1966-1977. August 1977. 

Nursing Education in North Carolina, 1975-1980. November 1975. 

Nursing Education in North Carolina, 1980-1985. February 1981. 

Nursing Education: North Carolina Articulation Project. 1977. 

Nursing Student Utilization of Clinical Experience Settings in North Carolina. Feb- 
ruary 1975. 

Policies of Senior Colleges and Universities Concerning Transfer Students from Two- 
Year Colleges in North Carolina. May 1976. 4 revisions, 1976- 1984. 

Preliminary Report on Some Plans of the University of North Carolina for Meeting the 
Need for Advanced Graduate and Professional Study in North Carolina during the 
Next Decade. 1 March 1967. 

Private Higher Education in North Carolina: Report and Recommendations. 14 March 
1975- 

Proceedings: Annual Urban Affairs Conference of the University of North Carolina. 
5 volumes. 1979-1983. 

A Proposal to Establish a Network of Mathematics and Science Education Centers in 
North Carolina. 23 May 1983. 

Quality Assurance Program. Liaison Committee Report. October 198 1. 

Quality Assurance Program, Status Report, Fall 1981. 14 September 1982. 

Recommended Actions Consistent with the Report of the Panel of Medical Consul- 
tants on a Statewide Plan for Medical Education in North Carolina. 16 Novem- 
ber 1973. 



[354] Bibliography 

Report: North Carolina Institute for Undergraduate Curricular Reform. September 
1975- 

Report of the Committee to Study the Request of East Carolina University for a Second 
Year of Medical Education. 29 December 1972. 

Report on Business and Management Degree Programs in the University of North 
Carolina. 8 May 1985. 

Report on Faculty Workload and Academic Tenure of the University of North Carolina. 
February 1979. 

Report on Graduation Rates. 8 May 1986. 

Report on Nursing Education Programs: North Carolina Agricultural and Technical 
State University, North Carolina Central University, Winston-Salem State Univer- 
sity. October 198 1. 

Report on Programs and Activities in the University of North Carolina and the Com- 
munity College System. May 1979. 

"Report on Resolution 27 (House Bill 334), 1983 Session," 14 June 1984. 

Report to the Board of Governors of the University of North Carolina by the Special 
Committee of Inquiry, Western Carolina University. 30 August 1973. 

Research in the University of North Carolina System Covering the Period 1977-1983: 
A Preliminary Report. February 1986. 

Review and Analysis of Sponsored Research at the University of North Carolina. Sep- 
tember 1975. 

A Review and Recommendations for Programs in Public Administration, Parks and 
Recreation Management, Social Work, and Criminal Justice. November 198 1. 

The Revised North Carolina State Plan for the Further Elimination of Racial Duality 
in Public Higher Education Systems, Phase II: 1978- 1983. August 1977. 

The Revised North Carolina State Plan for the Further Elimination of Racial Duality 
in Public Higher Education Systems, Phase II: 1978-1983. 22 August 1977; Com- 
ments, December 1977; Supplementary Statement, 30 December 1977; Supple- 
mentary Statement II, 12 May 1978. 

Rules and Standards for Licensing Non-Public Educational Institutions to Confer De- 
grees. March 1974. Revised edition, February 1976. 

Special Report: Techniques in the Undergraduate Curriculum. 1973 Summer Institute 
on Undergraduate Reform. January 1974. 

A State Program to Enlarge Educational Opportunity in North Carolina. 8 June 1973. 

Statistical Abstract of Higher Education in North Carolina. Published annually since 
1973- 

Student Services, Issues, Problems and Opportunities. April 1980; April 1983. 

Student Services: The State of Our Work. August 1984; November 1984; April 
1986. 

A Study of the Need for Additional Campuses of the University of North Carolina to 
Be Located at Asheville and Wilmington. 10 October 1968. 

A Study of the Need for an Additional Campus of the University of North Carolina to 
Be Located at Charlotte College. 9 November 1964. 

Study of Sponsored Research. 10 January 1975. 

Summary Report on Long- Range Planning. 12 September 1968. 

UNC Newsletter. Issued periodically through no. 16, June 1972. 



Bibliography [355] 



The University of North Carolina Board of Governors; A Guide. January 1986. 
The University of North Carolina Center for Public Television. September 1983. 
Veterinary Medical Education in North Carolina, A Special Report to the General 

Assembly of North Carolina by the Board of Governors of the University of North 

Carolina. 18 December 1974. 



WORKS CONCERNED WITH OR AFFECTING 
THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA 

Annual Report. School of Medicine, University of North Carolina. June 1970. 

"The Campus Crisis." Documents for Public Law Conference for Higher Edu- 
cation Administrators, sponsored by the North Carolina Board of Higher 
Education and the Institute of Government. 16- 17 July 1969. 

Center for Educational Research and Evaluation. Remedial Educational Activities 
of the University of North Carolina: 10,76. Research Triangle Institute. June 1977. 

Cole, Clarence R. and La Verne D. Knezek. Analysis of Alternate Locations for a 
School of Veterinary Medicine in North Carolina. Typescript. 29 October 1974. 

The Commission to Study the Manner of Selection of Trustees of the Greater 
University of North Carolina. Report of the Commission to Study the Manner of 
Selection of the Trustees of the Greater University of North Carolina. February 
1959- 

The Cooperative Planning Consortium of Special Education Training Programs 
in North Carolina. Advancing the Education of Exceptional Children, A Report 
and Recommendations on the Preparation of Professional Educational Personnel to 
Work with Children of Special Needs in North Carolina. January 1979. 

Cresap, McCormick and Paget Management Engineers. Excerpts from the Cresap, 
McCormick and Paget Management Study Report (on the University of North 
Carolina). 1953. 

Davis, Junius A., and Anne Borders-Patterson. Black Students in Predominantly 
White North Carolina Colleges and Universities. Durham, N.C. and Princeton, 
N.J.: Educational Testing Service, October 1971. 

Dawson, Raymond H., Vice President for Academic Affairs, University of 
North Carolina. Remarks to Faculty Council of the University of North 
Carolina at Chapel Hill, 21 October 1977, on "North Carolina's Response to 
the HEW Criteria:' 

. Remarks to Faculty Club of the University of North Carolina at Chapel 

Hill on "The Dispute with HEW." 4 April 1978. 

Dees, William A., Jr., Member and former chairman, Board of Governors, the 
University of North Carolina. "The North Carolina Plan or the Structure of 
Higher Education in North Carolina and the Responsibilities of the Board of 
Governors and of the Institutional Boards of Trustees." Trustees Conference. 
Unpublished. 1984. 

Fordham, Christopher C, III. A Report to President Friday on Planning for the 
Implementation of Section 46. Mimeographed. 8 November 1974. 



[356] Bibliography 



Mayer, Eugene, and Clark Lenikart. North Carolina Area Health Education Center 
Program, Historical Background. 12 February 1986. 

Medical Manpower Study Commission. Report of Medical Manpower Study Com- 
mission to IQ74 Session of Legislature. Mimeographed. January 1974. 

Miller, C. Arden, Vice Chancellor, Health Services, University of North Caro- 
lina at Chapel Hill. "Response to the Request for Ten Year Projections of En- 
rollment." Mimeographed. 29 February 1968. 

North Carolina AHEC Program. The North Carolina Area Health Education Cen- 
ters Program. Progress Report 1985. 

North Carolina Association of Independent Colleges and Universities. "Request 
to the Governor and Advisory Budget Commission for 1986-87 Fiscal 
Year."n.d. 

North Carolina Center for the Advancement of Teaching. Report and Recommen- 
dations of the Planning Committee. 1985. 

North Carolina Legislative Study Commission on Student Financial Aid. Pre- 
liminary Report, Part I. 1 September 1970. 

North Carolina Legislative Study Commission on Student Financial Aid. Report 
and Recommendations, Part II. 2 March 1971. 

OCR Evaluation of the Implementation of The Revised North Carolina State Plan 
for the Further Elimination of Racial Duality in the Public Post-Secondary Education 
Systems from 21 June 1974 to 31 January 1975. 

Passmore, Gary O. Goals, Problems and Options in State Aid to Private Higher 
Education. Office of State Budget. Mimeographed. 31 March 1975. 

Press Conference by HEW Secretary, Joseph A. Califano, Jr. News release. 2 
February 1978. 

. 22 March 1978. 

The Report of the Commission on Higher Education. State-Supported Higher 
Education in North Carolina. Raleigh, N.C. 5 January 1955. 

Report of the Panel of Medical Consultants to the Board of Governors of the 
University of North Carolina. A Statewide Plan for Medical Education in North 
Carolina. 21 September 1972. 

Sanders, John L. "Analysis of an Act to Consolidate the Institutions of Higher 
Learning in North Carolina." Session Laws of 1971, chapter 1244, ratified 30 
October 1971. Unpublished. 17 November 1971. 

. "The Evolution of the Idea of Making the Initial Board of Governors a 

Permanent Body." Unpublished. 1972. 

Warren, Lindsay O, Jr., Chairman. Report of the Governor's Study Committee on 
Structure and Organization of Higher Education. 17 May 1971. 



PUBLICATIONS OF THE NORTH CAROLINA 
BOARD OF HIGHER EDUCATION 

Biennial Reports for 1955-1971. 8 editions. 

Board of Higher Education Report on the Desirability of Elevating East Carolina Col- 
lege to Independent University Status. March 1967. 



Bibliography [357] 



Planning for Higher Education in North Carolina. November 1968. 

Private Higher Education in North Carolina: Conditions and Prospects: A Study of 
Enrollment, Finances, and Related Subjects, ig65~iQ70. April 1971. 

Report of Committee on Shortage of Doctors in North Carolina. March 1969. 

Report of Educational Programs Committee as Approved by the North Carolina Board 
of Higher Education Concerning the Request of East Carolina University for a Mas- 
ter of Medical Science Degree (Two- Year Curriculum for the School of Medi- 
cine). February 1971. 

Report on Proposal of University of North Carolina to Add Campuses at Asheville and 
Wilmington. March 1969. 

State Supported Traditional Negro Colleges in North Carolina. May 1967. 

Statistical Abstract of Higher Education in North Carolina. Issued annually, 
1967-72. 



COURT PROCEEDINGS 

Administrative Proceedings in the Department of Health, Education and Welfare 
in the matter of the State of North Carolina and the Board of Governors of 
the University of North Carolina. Notice of Opportunity for Hearing. 22 March 
1978. 

Brief filed in the Supreme Court of North Carolina in the case of Nova Univer- 
sity v. the Board of Governors of the University of North Carolina. 198 1. 

Consent Decree, North Carolina v. Department of Education. 17 July 198 1. 

Deposition of Martin Gerry, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colum- 
bia in Adams et al. vs. David Matthews. 13 January 1977. 

Government Pre-trial Brief Administrative Proceedings in the Department of 
Education, in the matter of the State of North Carolina and the Board of 
Governors of the University of North Carolina, Respondents. 31 May 1980. 

State of North Carolina, Board of Governors of the University of North Carolina 
v. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Complaint for Declaratory and 
Injunctive Relief in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North 
Carolina. 24 April 1979. 

The Supreme Court of North Carolina, Decision in the case of Nova v. the Board 
of Governors of the University of North Carolina. Fall term, 1981. 



LETTERS, MEMORANDA, AND STATEMENTS 

Letters from William C. Friday, president of the University of North Carolina: 
to Dr. Glen R. Leymaster, Council on Medical Education, 29 April 1974; to 
Leo W. Jenkins, chancellor of East Carolina University, 30 April 1974; from 
Chancellor Jenkins to President Friday, 6 May 1974; from President Friday to 
Chancellor Jenkins, 8 May 1974; from President Friday to Chancellor Jenkins, 
15 May 1974; from President Friday to Dr. Leymaster, 15 May 1974; from 
Chancellor Jenkins to President Friday, 20 May 1974; from Chancellor Jenkins 



[358] Bibliography 



to President Friday, 22 May 1974; from President Friday to Dr. Ley master, 29 
May 1974, concerning plans for expansion of medical education at East Caro- 
lina University. 

Letters from Governor James E. Holshouser, Jr., to Peter E. Holmes, director of 
OCR, 18 June 1974; letter from William C. Friday, president of the Univer- 
sity of North Carolina, to Mr. Holmes, 18 June 1974, commenting on 
Holmes's inquiry concerning the Revised North Carolina State Plan. 

Letter from William H. Thomas, director of Atlanta Office of OCR, 25 March 
1975, concerning veterinary medical education in North Carolina. 

Letter from Martin Gerry, acting director of OCR, to James E. Holshouser, Jr., 
governor of the state of North Carolina, 31 July 1975; from Governor 
Holshouser, 18 August 1975, concerning The Revised North Carolina State 
Plan. 

Letter from David S. Tatel, director of OCR, to William C. Friday, president of 
the University of North Carolina, 7 November 1977, enclosing initial com- 
ments on The Revised North Carolina State Plan: Phase II. 

Statement by William C. Friday, president of the University of North Carolina, 
to the Board of Governors, 1 1 November 1977, concerning Mr. Tatel's initial 
comments on The Revised North Carolina Plan: Phase II. 

Letter from David S. Tatel, director of OCR, 5 December 1977, to Honorable 
L. H. Fountain, House of Representatives. 

Letter from David S. Tatel, director of OCR, to James B. Hunt, Jr., governor of 
the state of North Carolina, 23 December 1977. 

Letter from William C. Friday, president of the University of North Carolina, to 
David S. Tatel, director of OCR, 23 January 1978, concerning his Comments 
on U.N.C. jo December Supplementary Statement. 

Letter from David S. Tatel, director of OCR, to William C. Friday, president of 
the University of North Carolina, 27 January 1978, enclosing Comments on 
U.N.C. December jo Supplementary Statement. 

Statement of William C. Friday, president of the University of North Carolina, 
4 February 1978, concerning HEW's Decision on The University's State Plan: 
Phase II. 

Statement of William C. Friday, president of the University of North Carolina, 
22 March 1978, concerning Secretary Califano's press conference. 

Memorandum from William C. Friday to faculty and staff of the constituent 
institutions, 23 May 1978, concerning 12 May agreement with HEW. 

Letter from Joseph A. Califano, Jr., secretary of HEW, to James B. Hunt, gover- 
nor of North Carolina, 1 1 July 1978, concerning the location of the veterinary 
school. 

Letter from William C. Friday, president of the University of North Carolina, to 
David S. Tatel, director of OCR, 25 January 1979, concerning the duplication 
studies and other matters. 

Letter from David S. Tatel, director of OCR, to William C. Friday, president of 
the University of North Carolina, 16 February 1979, asking for further dis- 
cussions on duplication. 

Memorandum from William C. Friday, president of the University of North 



Bibliography [359] 



Carolina, 20 July 1981, concerning settlement of the litigation between the 
University of North Carolina and the U.S. Department of Education. 



OFFICIAL MINUTES 

Minutes of the Board of Trustees of the University of North Carolina. Vols. 
5-17(26 May 1956-6 June 1972). Bound and unpublished. 

Minutes of the Planning Committee of the University of North Carolina (com- 
posed of the members chosen for the Board of Governors before assuming 
power on 1 July 1972). 1 January-23 June 1972. Unpublished. 

Minutes of the Board of Governors of the University of North Carolina. Vols. 
1- 12(7 July 1972-). Bound and unpublished. 



NEWSPAPERS 

Asheville Citizen 

Chapel Hill Newspaper 

Chapel Hill Weekly 

Charlotte Observer 

Daily Tar Heel 

Greensboro Daily News 

Greensboro Record 

New York Times 

(Raleigh) News and Observer 

Raleigh Times 

Washington (D.C.) Star 

Wilmington Star 
Winston-Salem Journal 



Index 



AAUP, 74 

Abernathy, Rev. Ralph David, 86 

Academic Freedom Act (proposed), 
235 

Academic programs: under President 
Gray, 5; reviewed by Board of 
Higher Education, 7; range of, 49, 
52, 104, 107, 109; administered by 
Consolidated University, 53-54, 56; 
in Afro-American studies, 75; in- 
ventory of, 179; duplication of, 
223-34 passim; approval by Board 
of Governors, 249-50; prebacca- 
laureate, 259-60 

Act to Consolidate the Institutions of 
Higher Learning in North Carolina 
(H.B. 1456): revisions of, 128-29, 
131-34; ratified, 134; provisions of, 
135-39; review of, 157 

Adams, Roderick D., 334 

Adams et al. v. Weinberger et ah, 212, 
214-15 

Adams v. Richardson, 206 

Administrative Code. See Code 

Admissions: testing programs for, 5, 
119; of nonresident undergraduate 
students, 22, 167, 173; Board of 
Trustees advisory committee on, 31; 
minimum requirements for, 262; of 
transfer students, 274-75 

Adult education, responsibility for, 55 

Advisory Council of Presidents of Pri- 
vate Colleges and Universities, 173, 
281, 282-83, 285, 291 

Affirmative action, use of, 204 

Alcohol, use of, 71, 74, 76 

Allen, ArchT., 66, 154, 155, 166, 
176, 33i 

Allen, Gordon, 128, 129-30 



Alley, Zeb, 128 

All-University Committee on aca- 
demic freedom, tenure, and aca- 
demic due process (Brandis com- 
mittee), 27 

All-University Committee on Admis- 
sions Policies, 19 

All-University Graduate Executive 
Council, 52-53 

American Council on Education, no 

American Federation of State-County 
Municipal Employees (AFSCME), 
84, 85 

American Indian culture, emphasized 
at Pembroke State, 256 

Anderson, Donald B.: offices held, 
37, 38, 141, 145; on university com- 
mittees, 47 

Andrews, Ike F.: on university com- 
mittees, 83, 113, 148; support for 
consolidation, 116, 121, 123, 126, 
127, 132; on Board of Governors, 
154, 155, 174, 331, 334 

Antonelli, George, 305 

Appalachian State, 100, 101, 104, 120, 
252, 257, 320-21 

Aptheker, Herbert, 63, 64, 65, 66, 70 

Archie, William, 98 

Area Health Education Centers 

(AHECs), 184, 193, 194-95, 275,293 

Arkansas, desegregation in, 215-16, 
224 

Asheville-Biltmore College: expan- 
sion of degrees at, 45, 92, 101; 
added to Consolidated University, 
50, 54, 92, 102-3, !04; develop- 
ment of, 104-5; enrollment at, io 9- 
See also University of North Caro- 
lina at Asheville 



[361] 



[362] 



Index 



Asheuille Citizen, 242 

Association of American Medical Col- 
leges, 106, 180 

Association of American Universities, 
no, 275 

Association of Private Junior Col- 
leges, 274 

Athletics, 15, 345-46. See also Basket- 
ball; Football; Proposition 48 

Atkins, Trudy, 306 

Atlantic Christian College, 281, 292 

Atlantic Coast Conference, and bas- 
ketball scandal, 13, 41 

Atomic Energy Commission, 15-16, 

34 
Aycock, William Brantley: as chancel- 
lor at Chapel Hill, 13, 123; in bud- 
get crisis of 1959, 37; in basketball 
scandal of 196 1, 40; report on 
speaker-ban law implementation, 
58, 59; on right to peaceful protest, 
72; retirement of, 142 

Baez, Joan, 80 

Bair, George E., 17, 303, 308 

Balfour, Linda, 254, 300 

Barnhill, Howard C, 154, 156, 172, 
331, 332, 334 

Barber, Wade, 60, 64, 82 

Barnes, Gary T., 254, 301 

Barwick, Allen J., 300 

Basketball: scandal in, 13, 40-43; first 
televised game, 16; statewide inter- 
est in, 39-40; NCAA champions 
(1957), 40; restrictions imposed on 
grants-in-aid, 41-42; disrupted by 
sit-down, 72 

Beattie, Richard, 227, 236 

Belk, Irwin, 98, 332, 333, 335 

Bell, Terrell, 239, 240 

Bello, Tom, 87 

Bennett, Ivan L., Jr., 183, 184, 192 

Bennett Panel, recommendations of, 
184, 192-93 

Berry, Mary, 234-35 

Best, Andrew A., 154, 155, 164, 331 

Bethel Family Practice Clinic, 192 



Betts, Doris, 343 

Bible colleges, 251, 279 

Bishop, Charles E., 146, 301 

Black Student Movement (BSM), 
73-75, 78 

Blackwell, Gordon W. (chancellor at 
Greensboro), 13, 37, 38 

Blevins, David G., 90 

Board of Governors for the Univer- 
sity: organized, xi, 135; powers of, 
136—39, 243; first, 153-56; location 
for, 161, 162, 164, 167; first meet- 
ing of (1972), 167, 172; problems 
confronting, 167-69, 179; long- 
range planning by, 168, 172, 173, 
202, 251-58; assets of, 169-70; 
early actions of, 171-72, 175; ad 
hoc committees of, 172-74, 243; 
Jordan committee report on medical 
education, 182-83; Williams com- 
mittee report on veterinary medi- 
cine, 196-97; financial aid admin- 
istered by, 279; responsibility for 
private institutions, 279; Newsletter 
of, 306; meetings of, 329; rules of 
membership, 330-31 

— Planning Committee: organized, 
153; members, 155-56, 331; com- 
mittees of, 156, 161-62, 163-64; 
activities of, 165-66, 182; dis- 
solved, 166 

— Committee on Budget and Finance: 
responsibilities outlined in Code, 
244; types of funding, 244-45; bud- 
gets prepared, 246; chairmen, 246; 
lobbying by, 246-47; tuition and 
fees established, 247-48; Board dis- 
content on budgets, 336 

— Committee on Educational Plan- 
ning, Policies and Programs: re- 
sponsibilities outlined in Code, 
248-49; chairmen, 249; approval of 
academic programs by, 249-50; li- 
censing non-public degree-granting 
institutions, 250-51, 275; long- 
range planning overseen, 251-58; 
other activities, 258-63; financial 



Index 



[363] 



aid requests to, 281 --82, 285, 287 

— Committee on Personnel and Ten- 
ure: responsibilities outlined in 
Code, 263, 264-65; chairmen, 263- 
64; objectives of, 264; development 
of tenure policies, 264-65; on fac- 
ulty work load, 266-67; on process 
for selection of chancellors, 267-68 

— Committee on University Gover- 
nance: responsibilities outlined in 
Code, 268, 271-72; chairmen, 268- 
69; recommendations for nominees 
for local boards, 269; nominees for 
other boards, 269-70; revisions 
of Code by, 270; other activities, 
270-73 

Board of Higher Education: organized 
(1955), 4, 26, 32, 108; university's 
problems with, 6, 9, 18-19, 22-25; 
review of academic programs by, 7; 
role of, 20-21; staff merged with 
university (1972), 166; expansion 
studies by, 93-94, 101-3; attempt 
to abolish, 97-98, 108; reports on 
medical education, 180, 181 

Board of Trustees of the Consolidated 
University: Friday's appointment by, 
9—10; power of, 11; role of, 21; 
problems with Board of Higher 
Education, 6, 9, 18-19, 22-25; 
criticized, 26-27, 32; by-laws of, 
28-31; standing committees of, 
30-31; consideration of speaker-ban 
law by, 59-60; replaced by Board of 
Governors, 135; revised powers of, 
139, 171 

— executive committee of: presidential 
search committee report to, 8, 9; 
power of, 11, 27; members of, 12; 
actions stipulated in Code, 30 

Board of Trustees, local: statutory 
powers, 139; powers delegated by 
the Board of Governors, 171 

Bodenheimer, F. P.: on Board of Gov- 
ernors, 249, 332, 333, 335, 338, 
339; on university committees, 345 

Bonds, for student housing, 8 



Boshamer, Cary C, 127, 153 

Bost, Raymond, 173 

Bostian, Carey (chancellor at 
Raleigh), 37-38 

Bourne, Robert G. B., 299 

Bowe, Geneva J., 333, 339 

Bowles, Hargrove, Jr., 336 

Bowman Gray School of Medicine, 
182, 183, 193, 195, 196, 275 

Boyer, Ernest, 227, 229 

Boyle, B. Irvin, 269, 333, 335, 339 

Bradshaw, Charles W., 127 

Branch, James Arthur, 15 

Brandis, Henry, 27 

Brandis committee. See All- 
University Committee on academic 
freedom, tenure, and academic due 
process 

Brewer, Thomas B. (chancellor at East 
Carolina), 318-19 

Bridges, Henry, 323 

Britt, David M., 61 

Britt, W. Earl, on Board of Gover- 
nors, 154, 156, 172, 174, 246, 332, 
335 

Britt Commission, 61-62, 67 

Broadway, Stan C, 304 

Brooks, Elizabeth, 77 

Brown, Clark S., 154, 155, 201, 332 

Brown, David, 327 

Brown, Frank H., Jr., 312, 314 

Brown, Walter, 289 

Browning, Shirley, 309 

Brownstein, Aaron, 343 

Brown v. Board of Education o/Topeka 
(1954), 5, 204 

Broyhill, Faye A., 343 

Bryan, James A., II, 337 

Bryan, Joseph M., 308 

Bryant, Victor S.: report on possible 
acting presidents by, 3; on univer- 
sity committees, 8, 9, 23, 27, 47, 
82, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 
119, 121, 176; on Board of Trustees 
executive committee, 12; in support 
of expansion, 51, 112-13, 123, 126; 
on speaker policy, 64, 65, 67; on re- 



[36 4 ] 



Index 



tirement of Gov. Moore, 75; pro- 
posed change in Code by, 82; on 
Board of Governors, 154, 156, 190, 
332; on Code committee, 163, 164, 
170, 171, 175; objection to forced 
desegregation, 208, 210; recipient of 
University Award, 335 

Buchanan, Hugh, 298 

Budget, of the University: as one of 
Friday's goals, 10, 12; increase in, 
12, 15; crisis in 1959, 36-37; after 
restructuring, 124, 137-38, 167- 
68, 173, 311. See also Board of Gov- 
ernors: Committee on Budget and 
Finance 

Bullock, TerresaT., 345 

Bunting, Elizabeth C., 306 

Burgwyn, Mebane H. (Mrs. John G.), 
on university committees, 47, 51, 
65, 113, 116 

Burney, John, 121, 122 

Burnim, Mickey L., 297-98 

Burroughs-Wellcome, 35 

Business officer and treasurer: office 
created, 6; officeholders, 8, 13, 
146-47 

Butler, Algernon L., 67 

Cagle, Kenneth, 343 
Caldwell, Claude E., 306-7 
Caldwell, Helen M., 309 
Caldwell, John Tyler (chancellor at 

North Carolina State), 38, 40, 50- 

51, 59, 121, 199, 200, 315-16 
Califano, Joseph A., Jr., 203, 223-24, 

225-32, 236, 237 
Campbell College, 281 
Cannon, Hugh, 132, 154, 155, 172, 

246, 313, 331, 333 
Capel, FeltonJ., 343 
Carlton, J. Philip, 290 
Carlton, Jack K. (chancellor at Western 

Carolina), 313 — 14 
Carlyle, Irving E., 44, 120 
Carlyle Commission. See Governor's 

Commission on Education Beyond 

the High School 



Carmichael, Stokely, 74 

Carmichael, William Donald, Jr.: con- 
sidered for presidency, 3; as finance 
officer, 4, 146; on university com- 
mittees, 7; appeal for funds for edu- 
cational television, 16; in budget 
crisis of 1959, 37; death of (1961), 
39 

Carnegie Commission on the Future 
of Higher Education, no, 251-52 

Carnegie Foundation for the Advance- 
ment of Teaching, no 

Carrington, Elizabeth Scott, 336 

Carroll, Roy, 249, 253, 301, 309 

Carson, Philip G.: on Board of Gov- 
ernors, xii, 227, 232, 269, 289, 310, 
33 1, 333, 335, 338; on Presidential 
Search Committee, 339, 342-43, 
346 

Carter, Jimmy, 224, 239 

Case, Everett, 40 

Catawba College, 292 

Center for Public Television, 273, 308. 
See also Educational television 

Center for the Renewal of Higher 
Education, 166 

Chambers, Julius: on Board of Gover- 
nors, 154, 155, 156, 201, 332; on 
desegregation, 209; resignation of, 
217 

Chancellors: at Chapel Hill, 5, 6, 10, 
13, 63, 66, 74, 75, 76, 80, 142-44, 
148-49, 322-23; at Greensboro, 4, 
6, 7, 10, 12, 13, 38-39, 144, 320; at 
North Carolina State, 4, 37-38, 40, 
50-51, 59, 121, 199, 200, 315-16; 
at Charlotte, 99-100, 317; at East 
Carolina, 186, 318-20; at North 
Carolina A&T State, 199, 323-24; 
process for selection of, 267-68, 
328; at Wilmington, 312; at Fayette- 
ville State, 312; at Western Carolina, 
312-14; at School of the Arts, 315; 
at Winston-Salem State, 316-17; at 
Appalachian State, 320-21; at Pem- 
broke State, 321-22; at Elizabeth 
City State, 324-25; at North Caro- 



Index 



[365] 



lina Central, 325-26, 336; at Ashe- 
ville, 327; after restructuring, 327- 
28; responsibilities of, 328. See also 
names of individual chancellors 

Chapel Hill Freedom Committee, 72 

Chapel Hill Weekly, 11, 153 

Charlotte College: expansion of de- 
grees at, 45, 46, 92; added to Con- 
solidated University (1964), 50, 54, 
92, 93-97, 98; General Faculty of, 
64; president of, 95, 98, 99. See also 
University of North Carolina at 
Charlotte 

Charlotte Consortium, 293 

Charlotte-Mecklenburg School Sys- 
tem, 293 

Charlotte Memorial Hospital, 194 

Charlotte News, 36, 227 

Charlotte Observer, 66, III, 347-49 

Cheek, Neal K., 330 

Chemstrand Corporation, 34 

Chess, Sammie, 115 

Church, John, 176 

Civil Rights Act (1964), 72, 73, 204, 
205 

Civil rights movement, 58; demon- 
strations in North Carolina, 71-73 

Classification: of institutions in the 
university, 251-52 

Clayton, Eva, 201 

Coates, Albert, xii 

Cobb, Laurence A., 232, 332, 333, 
335 

Coble, Charles Ray, Jr., 254, 300-301 

Code: revised under Pres. Gray, 5; for- 
malized under Pres. Friday, 11; ap- 
peals system amended, 15; Brandis 
committee report included in, 27, 
31-32; special committee for, 28, 
32; General Statutes in, 28; by-laws 
of board in, 28-31; role of principal 
university officers outlined in, 31, 
82-83; speaker policy in, 68; stu- 
dent discipline in, 82-83, 91; Board 
of Governors' committee on, 156, 
161, 162, 164-65; adopted by Board 
of Governors, 169, 170; Chapter 6 



revised, 175; Board of Governors' 
standing committees established by, 
243; current method for revisions, 
270 

Cold war, 58 

Cole, Clarence R., 199 

College Foundation, student loans 
from, 277, 304 

College Scholarship Service, 280 

Coltrane, David, 277 

Coltrane, T. Worth, 227, 232, 246, 
33i, 333 

Colvard, Dean W. (chancellor at 
Charlotte), 99-100, 317 

Committee for Free Inquiry, 65 

Committee for Open Business (COB), 
71-72 

Committee on Education Beyond the 
High School, report to President 
Eisenhower by, 20 

Committee on Racial Equality 
(CORE), 72 

Communist party: speakers banned, 
57, 58, 66; student adherents, 70 

Community college system, recom- 
mended, 45, 48; unsegregated, 205; 
duplication in, 223; organized, 276; 
presidential assistant for relations 
with, 295. See also names of indi- 
vidual community colleges 

Comparative Study of the Historically 
Black Constituent Institutions of The 
University of North Carolina, 213 

Comprehensive Health Manpower 
Training Act of 197 1, 194 

Computer, as partial gift of Sperry- 
Rand, 19 

Cone, Bonnie E.: as president of 
Charlotte College, 95, 98, 99-100, 
317; recipient of University Award, 
335 

Consolidated University of North 
Carolina: organized (193 1), xi; co- 
education at, xi, 49, 53; expansion 
of (to 1971), xi, 49-51, 52, 54, 
93-97, 98, 101-4, 105, 112; criti- 
cism of, 4, 6, 32; administrative 



[366] 



Index 



offices of, 5, 10, no; administrative 
council of, n, 311; self-study of, 
18, 21; long-range planning for, 20, 
21, no; capital improvements for, 
20, 30; investment of funds of, 30; 
function defined, 45-46, 48, 49, 52, 
53, 55-56; naming of, 48, 50-51, 
92-93; philosophy and purpose of, 
52-53, 54, 55-56; speaker policy 
for, 62-63, 64-65, 67-68; appro- 
priations for, 109; restructuring to 
include sixteen campuses, 133-48; 
administrative staff for, 141-49 

Continuing education, for health- 
professional personnel, 195 

Cooke, Henry C, 309 

Cooper, Lawrence, 201 

Cooper, Lenox, G., 12, 154, 155, 172, 
332 

Corey, John R, 301, 304, 305 

Corpening, Wayne A., 332, 333, 335, 
338, 342 

Coulter, Myron L. (chancellor at 
Western Carolina), 314 

Covington, Harold Douglas (chancel- 
lor at Winston-Salem State), 317 

Craig, Ben T., 343 

Cresap, McCormick and Paget, man- 
agement report by, 294, 311 

Criteria Specifying the Ingredients of Ac- 
ceptable Plans to Desegregate State 
Systems of Public Higher Education, 
215, 216-17 

Crosby, Kathleen K., 332 

Crowe, Edward W., 330 

Crucible (Ward, 1962), 315 

Curtin, Terrence M. (dean of School 
of Veterinary Medicine), 202 

Curtis, Billie, 145 

Cusic, Pat, 71 

Daily Tar Heel, 13, 74 

Daniel, Hugh S., Jr., on board of 
Governors' committees, 154, 156, 
172, 173, 190, 200, 207-8, 243, 
249, 332 



Danieley, James Earl, 333, 338, 339, 
346 

Data General, 35 

Davenport, John E., 333, 339, 345 

Davidson College, 274, 283, 284, 293 

Davies, Jeffrey R., 299 

Davis, Archie K.: on university com- 
mittees, 34, 65, 67, 82, 83, 113, 
116, 343; recipient of University 
Award, 335 

Davis, John B., 254, 300 

Davis, Junius A., 214 

Davis, Lawrence, 128 

Davis, Robert, 173 

Davis, Walter R., 333, 335, 338, 342 

Davison, Wilburt C, 276 

Dawson, Raymond H.: offices held, 
xii, 149, 249, 264, 295; on univer- 
sity committees, 175; on desegrega- 
tion, 216, 220, 221, 228, 229; assess- 
ment of private colleges by, 285; 
staff under, 295-98; responsibilities 
of, 298 

Deaton, Bryant L., 299, 324 

Dees, William A., Jr.: on university 
committees, 83, 119, 126, 176, 227, 
289; on Board of Governors, 154, 
156, 162, 172, 174, 212, 232, 240, 
246, 332, 334, 335, 336, 338, 339; as 
Board spokesman on medical edu- 
cation, 184, 185; on Presidential 
Search Committee, 342 

Delany, Harold, 166, 172, 304 

Department of Administration (of 
governor's office), 18, 36 

Department of Health, Education and 
Welfare (HEW), 204. See also Office 
for Civil Rights 

Department of Physics (at Chapel 
Hill), 33 

Department of Sociology (at Chapel 
Hill), 75 

Desegregation, within universities in 
North Carolina, 5, 9, 71-72, 167, 
204-42 passim 

Dickson, Paul, III, 65, 66 



Index 



[367] 



Dickson v. Sitterson and Friday, 68 

Division of Health Affairs (at Chapel 
Hill): during Pres. Gray's admin- 
istration, 5; problems in, 6, 7, 18; 
and Committee on Health Affairs 
of the Board of Trustees, 31; faculty 
for, 109 

Dixie Classic, 40, 42, 43 

Dixon, John, 89 

Dobbins, Preston, 73, 77, 78, 81, 85 

Dorton, J. Sibley, 298 

Dowdy, Lewis C. (chancellor at North 
Carolina A&T State), 199, 323 

Dreyfus Foundation, 34 

Drogos, Eugene C, 299 

Drugs, use of, 71, 74 

Duke University: in the Research Tri- 
angle Committee and Research Tri- 
angle Institute, 33 — 34; in TUCC, 
36; in Dixie Classic, 40; student 
demonstrations at, 75, 81; School of 
Medicine at, 181, 182, 183, 193, 
io 5> 2 75J association with the Uni- 
versity, 275, 292, 293 

Dunlap, Sarah Virginia, 148 

Dunlop, John W., 308 

Dunne, John, 71 

Duplication, of programs, 223-34 
passim, 291 

Dupree, Franklin, 237, 239, 240, 242 

Eagles, Joseph, 176 

East Carolina University, 100, 10 1, 
106, 108, 252, 293, 318-20. See also 
School of Medicine (at East Caro- 
lina University) 

Eastern Area Health Education Center 
(AHEC), 188, 191, 195 

Edgecombe General Hospital, 194 

Educational television, 5, 16-17, 
307-8. See also Center for Public 
Television 

Educational Television Facilities Act, 
17 

Edwards, David B., Jr., 295-96, 306 

Eisenhower, Dwight D., 20 



Elizabeth City State University, 106, 
240, 252, 260, 261, 324-25 

Employees: nonacademic, 5, 73, 74, 
77, 84; retirement of, 6, 273; salaries 
for, 78, 80, 81; numbers of, 244; 
rules governing political activities 
of, 273; guaranteed employment 
for, 294. See also Faculty 

Ennis, Leon Martin, 299 

Enrollment: at Chapel Hill, xi, 8, 15, 
108, 323; at Raleigh, 8, 15, 108; at 
Greensboro, 8, 15, 108-9; at private 
colleges, 45, 276-77, 278, 291; at 
medical schools, 181, 183, 189-90, 
191-92, 193; at veterinary schools, 
196, 197, 199; at School of the Arts, 
315; at Charlotte, 317, 318; declin- 
ing black, 336. See also Desegrega- 
tion; Students, black 

— totals in the University: in 193 1, xi; 
in 1956, xi, 8, 26, 108; in 1957, 15; 
in 1971, 26, 108; projections for, 45, 
222; in 1975, 45, 276; increases 
needed, 54; in 1964, 141; plans for, 
165; in 1972, 167; in 1985, 167, 243; 
goals set, 240; in 1962, 276 

Epps, Grace, 333 

Ervin, Sam J., Jr., 65, 120 

Faculty: selection of, 56, 86; support 
for student demonstrators, 87-88; 
increases in, 109; work load of, 
266-67; overseen by Board of Gov- 
ernors' Committee on Governance, 
270. See also Board of Governors, 
Committee on Personnel and Ten- 
ure; Faculty Assembly; Salaries, for 
faculty; Tenure, for faculty 

Faculty Advisory Committee to the 
President (of the Consolidated Uni- 
versity), 12, 46-47, 64, 83, 93, 95 

Faculty Assembly, 12, 271, 295, 309, 
3io 

Farmer, James, 72 

Fayetteville AHEC, 195 

Fayetteville State University, 106, 120, 



[368] 



Index 



206, 240, 252, 256, 259, 261 

Federal Communications Commis- 
sion, 16 

Federal Home Housing Finance 
Bonds, 8 

Ferebee, Percy, 47 

Ferguson, James S. (chancellor at 
Greensboro), 144, 320 

Ferrell, Henry, 309 

Financial aid for students: studied, 
277-80; appropriation for students 
in private colleges, 281-82, 285- 
88, 289-91 

Finlator, Rev. William W., 14 

Firearms, prohibited on campus, 83 

Fisk University, Meharry Medical 
College. See Meharry Medical 
College 

Flack, Charles Z., Jr., 332, 334, 338, 
346 

Florida, desegregation in, 215-16, 224 

Football, 42, 123 

Foote, Vincent M., 309 

Ford Foundation, grants from, 16 

Fordham, Christopher C, III: medical 
school dean, 182, 186-88; chancel- 
lor at Chapel Hill, 322-23, 343 

Fort, Edward B. (chancellor at North 
Carolina A&T State), 324 

Fort Bragg Extension Center, 206, 
259 

Foscue, Henry Armfield, 75-76, 98, 
336 

Fountain, Ben, 220 

Fountain, L. H., 221-22 

Fox, Joan S., 333, 345 

Fretwell, E. K., Jr. (chancellor at 
Charlotte), 317, 343 

Friday, Ida Howell, 10, 164, 336, 349 

Friday, William Clyde (president, 
1956-86): as secretary, 3; as acting 
president, 3, 4, 6-8; background 
of, 4; newspaper support for, 7-8, 
10- 11; goals outlined by, 8-9, 10; 
appointed as president of Consoli- 
dated University, 8-10; family of, 
10, 164; inauguration of, 14; state- 



ment on basketball scandal in 1961, 
41; statement in support of expan- 
sion, 51, 54; on philosophy and 
purposes, 55-56; on speaker-ban 
policy, 58, 64; on student activism, 
74, 78, 79, 89-90, 91; as member of 
national educational boards, no; 
services to Planning Committee, 
157-66; appointed as president of 
the restructured university, 162—64; 
on medical education, 182, 184, 
186, 189; on desegregation, 206, 
209, 212, 221-22, 223, 224-25, 
226, 228, 229, 234, 235; reports by, 
295; administrative style of, 295, 
311; recipient of awards, 336, 349; 
retirement of, 336-37, 339, 349~5o; 
support for Proposition 48, 345; on 
Research Triangle Institute Board of 
Governors, 349 

Friends of Education, 119 

Froelich, Jacob H., Jr.: on university 
committees, 119, 122, 123, 126, 
127, 130, 132; on Board of Gover- 
nors, 154, 156, 172, 200, 232, 243, 
268, 332, 334, 338-39; on Presi- 
dential Search Committee, 342 

Fuller, Howard, 79, 81, 84, 85 

Gardner, O. Max, Awards, 31, 150, 
228, 330, 337 

Garwood, John A., 334 

General Electric, 35 

General Statutes. See Code 

Georgia, desegregation in, 215-16, 
224 

Gerry, Martin, 211, 214 

Gilmore, William H., 302 

Givens, Paul (chancellor at Pembroke 
State), 321-22 

Glidden, 35 

Godwin, Phil, 57, 117, 121 

Good Health Campaign, 181, 276 

Governor's Commission on Education 
Beyond the High School (Carlyle 
Commission): committees of, 44- 
45; research by, 45; recommenda- 



Index 



[369] 



tions by, 45-46, 47, 48-51, 92, 276 

Graduate Student Association, 75, 78 

Graduate studies: research funds for, 
8, 10, 303; vice president for, 8, 13, 
38; at each campus, 52, 56; policies 
for, 52-53, 54; growth of, 54; re- 
sponsibility for, 55; degrees offered, 
in 

Graham, E. K.,Jr. (chancellor at 
Greensboro), 7 

Graham, Frank Porter (president, 
1931-50), 4-5, H, 149, 164 

Grants: for graduate study, 8, 10; for 
educational television, 16; for nu- 
clear reactor, 16; for high school 
teachers' institute, 17-18; to Re- 
search Triangle Institute, 34; for 
TUCC, 36; vice president to over- 
see, 146; to medical schools, 192 

Graves, Louis, 11 

Gray, Gordon (president, 1950-55): 
resignation of, 3, 9; election of, 4; 
administration under, 5-6; at inau- 
guration of Pres. Friday, 14; man- 
agement report under, 294; as re- 
cipient of University Award, 336 

Green, James C., 201 

Greensboro AHEC, 195 

Greensboro Daily News, 24-25, 113 

Grier, Joseph, 289 

Grimes, Willie, 88 

Grogan, Kennis R., 298 

Gudger, Lamar (state senator), 130 

Guest, Romeo H., 33 

Guilford College, 292, 293 

Gunter, Daniel C., Jr., 263, 267, 333 

Gupton, Milton H., 299 

Guthrie, Paul N., 85 

Hackley, Lloyd Vincent, 297, 305 
Haire, R. Phillip, 333, 337, 338 
Hamilton, C. Horace, 45 
Hamilton, Luther, 65 
Hanes, Robert M., 33, 34 
Hardison, R. L., 303 
Harrelson, J. W. (chancellor at North 
Carolina State), 4 



Harris, Sandy, 128 

Harris, W. C, 115 

Harrison, Billy, 126 

Hart, Lawrence E., 315 

Hasty, Fred H., 167 

Hauser, Alan, 309 

Hawkins, Reggie, 73 

Haynsworth, Clement F., Jr., 66 

Health Affairs Library, 178, 188 

Health Professions Educational Assis- 
tance Act, 182 

Heatherley, Marilyn F., 299 

Helms, Jesse, 235 

Henley, John, 288, 289 

Herbert, George, 34 

Herring, W. Dallas, 335 

Higher Education Act of 1963, 54 

Higher Education Committee, of the 
State Legislature, 97 

Higher Education General Informa- 
tion Survey (HEGIS), 254 

Highfill, Hilda A., 300 

Highsmith, William E., 104, 327 

Hill, George Watts: on Board of Trust- 
ees executive committee, 12; state- 
ment on relations between Board of 
Higher Education and university, 
18-19; an d Research Triangle Foun- 
dation, 34; on university commit- 
tees, 47, 61, 67; as opponent of 
restructuring, 123, 126, 127; on 
Board of Governors, 154, 156, 176- 
77, 332, 333; as recipient of Univer- 
sity Award, 335 

Hill, Watts, Jr., 98, 115, 154, 155 

Hill, William L., 126, 127 

Hodges, Luther (governor of N.C., 
1954-60): announcing resignation 
of Pres. Gray, 3; on Board of Trust- 
ees, 12, 39; at inauguration of Pres. 
Friday, 14; on cooperation between 
university and Board of Higher 
Education, 22; support for Research 
Triangle, 33 

Hodges, Luther, Jr.: on Board of 
Governors, 268, 331, 333, 334 

Holderness, Adelaide F. (Mrs. How- 



[370] 



Index 



ard), 126, 154, 155, 332, 333, 335, 
336 

Holderness, Howard, 336 

Holmes, James E.: on Board of Gover- 
nors, 246, 289, 332, 333, 335; on 
university committees, 346 

Holmes, Peter (director of OCR), 
203, 207, 208, 209, 210- 1 1, 212 

Holshouser, James E., Jr. (governor of 
N.C., 1973-76): as governor, 201, 
208, 209, 211; on Board of Gover- 
nors, 264, 333, 335, 339; on Presi- 
dential Search Committee, 343 

Hope, Frances, 330 

Horton, Hamilton C, Jr. (state sena- 
tor), 131 

House, Robert Burton (chancellor at 

. Chapel Hill), 5, 6-7 

Howell, John M. (chancellor at East 
Carolina), 319 

Hufstedler, Shirley, 239 

Humanities institute, 15 

Hunt, James B., Jr. (governor of 
N.C., 1977-84), 201, 215, 217, 
236, 307 

Huskins, J. P.: on Board of Higher 
Education Committee, 103; on 
Board of Governors, 154, 155, 172, 
173, 243 

Hyde, Herbert, 307-8 

Hyde, Wallace N., 115, 154, 156, 
163-64, 332 

Hyde Task Force, on public television, 
308 

IBM, 35 

Ingram, Elwanda, 343 

Institute for Research in Social Science 

(at Chapel Hill), 32 
Integrated Postsecondary Education 

Data System, 254 

Jackson, Walter C. (chancellor at 

Greensboro), 4 
James, Herman Brooks, 146, 197, 301 
Jenkins, James L., Jr. ("Jay"), 145-46, 

306 



Jenkins, Jimmy R. (chancellor at 
Elizabeth City State), 325 

Jenkins, Leo: as president of East 
Carolina College, 44, 100, 106, 165, 
180, 205; as chancellor, 186, 188, 
191; 192, 318-19 

Johnson, James, 289 

Johnson, Paul A., 36 

Johnson, William A.: on university 
committees, 65, 127, 190, 198-99, 
212-13, 217, 227, 312; on Board of 
Governors, 154, 156, 161, 162, 176, 
285, 289, 332, 334, 338, 339; on 
Presidential Search Committee, 343 

Johnson C. Smith University, 293 

Joint Committee on Health (of the 
General Assembly), 184 

Joint Legislative Commission on 
Medical Manpower, 185 

Jones, Rev. Charles, 72 

Jones, E. Walton, 302 

Jones, English E. (chancellor at Pem- 
broke State), 206, 321 

Jones, Robert L., 332, 335, 338 

Jordan, Everett, 89 

Jordan, John R. , Jr. : on Board of 
Trustees, 126; on Board of Gover- 
nors, 154, 155, 208, 212, 227, 229, 
249, 289, 332, 333, 334, 337; state- 
ment about Chancellor Leo Jenkins, 
319; on Presidential Search Com- 
mittee, 343 

Jordan, Robert B., Ill: on university 
committees, 126, 127; on Board of 
Governors, 154, 156, 332, 335; as 
chairman of committee to study 
medical education, 182 

Jordan committee, report of, 182-83 

Joyner, L. Felix: as vice president for 
finance, 147, 172; on university 
committees, 227, 246; staff under, 
298-99; responsibilities of, 299 

Joyner, William, 66 

Junior colleges, 274, 276 

Kenan, Frank H., 336 

Kennedy, John P., Jr. : on Board of 



Index 



[371] 



Higher Education staff, 129; as uni- 
versity secretary, 149, 160-61, 269, 
330; as secretary of Planning Com- 
mittee, 157, 166; as assistant secre- 
tary of Board of Governors, 172 
Kent State University, students killed 

at, 87, 88 
Kepley, Ellen Hogan, 299 
Kerr, Clark, xii, 47, 327, 349 
King, Arnold K.: on university com- 
mittees, 21, 310; directed studies for 
expansion to Charlotte, Asheville, 
and Wilmington, 93, 94, 101; of- 
fices held, 141-42, 306, 327; retire- 
ment of, 149, 306 
King, Martin Luther, Jr., 70, 73, 74 
Kirby, Russell,! 19, 121, 125, 129 
Knezek, La Verne D., 199 
Korean War, 58 

Lake, I. Beverly, 73 

Larkins, Charles H., Sr., 154, 155, 
33i 

Lathrop, Virginia (Mrs. A. H.): on 
Board of Trustees executive com- 
mittee, 12, 126, 127; on university 
committees, 39, 58, 65, 67, 83, 312; 
on Board of Governors, 154, 156, 
332 

Laupus, William E., 191 

Law schools, 250, 258, 275, 288, 300, 
325, 330 

Leath, Thomas, 98 

Lee, James, 85 

Legates, J. E., 197 

Lenoir-Rhyne College, 292 

Lenski, Gerhard, 87 

Levin, Joseph J., Jr. (counsel for the 
university), 240 

Levy, Jack Benjamin, 1 50 

Lewis, Henry W., 76, 148 

Leymaster, Glenn, 186 

Liaison Committee on Medical Edu- 
cation (of the American Medical 
Association), 106, 180, 183, 191, 
192 

Libraries, improvements for, 10, 178 



Lichtman, Elliot, 240 

Local boards of trustees for the six- 
teen campuses: method of appoint- 
ment, 269 

Long Range Planning, 1976- iq8i, of the 
Board of Governors, 202, 252-53, 300 

Louisiana, desegregation in, 215-16 

Love, J. Spencer, 39 

Lowenstein, Allard, 58 

Lucas, Paul, 114, 115 

Lumbee Indians, 107, 321 

Lyons, Charles "A," Jr. (chancellor at 
Fayetteville State ), 206, 312 

McCain, Betty, 332, 334 
McCarthy, Sen. Joseph, 58 
McClure, Wes, 74 
McCoy, Reginald F., on Board of 

Governors, 154, 156, 249, 332, 334, 

346 
McEniry, W. Hugh, 313-14 
McGuire, Frank, 40, 43 
McKnight, Thomas, 98 
McLendon, Major L. P., 26, 44 
McMillan, R. D., Jr., 246, 306 
McNair, Martha F., 263, 266, 335 
McNally, Jeanne Margaret, 296 
Mac Vicar, Robert W., 101 
Malcolm X School of Liberation, 79, 

84 
Mallard, Raymond, 72 
Mann, Barbara, 305-6 
Marion, Paul, 305 
Martin, Perry, 119, 123, 125, 133 
Maryland, desegregation in, 215-16 
Mathematics and Science Education 

Center Network, 292, 296 
Mathews, David, 212 
Mathias, John, 239 
Maynard, Reid, on university com- 
mittees, 12, 64, 82, 83, 99 
Mecklenburg County Area Study, 

93-97. See also Charlotte College 
Medford, William, 60, 142 
Medford committee, 60, 61 
Medical Scholars Program of the 

Board of Governors, 196 



[372] 



Index 



Meharry Medical College, 181, 195, 
196 

Memory, Jasper D., 303 

Miller, George, 128 

Milley, Jane Elizabeth (chancellor at 
North Carolina School of the Arts), 
315 

Mills, Fred, 121, 130 

Mills, William D., 332, 333, 335 

Mintz, Rudolph I., 28 

Mintz Code. See Code 

Mississippi, desegregation in, 215 — 16 

"Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood," 17 

Monroe, Edwin W. (vice president of 
East Carolina), 165 

Moore, Dan K. (governor of N.C., 
1965-68): request for comprehen- 
sive plan for higher education (1966), 
21; election of (1964), 60, 73; role in 
speaker-ban issue, 61, 62, 63, 64, 
65, 67, 69; last meeting on Board of 
Trustees, 75; and expansion of Con- 
solidated University, 98, 101 

Moran, William E. (chancellor at 
Greensboro), 320 

Moreland, Jackie, 13 

Morgan, Charles, Jr., 235, 236, 237 

Morgan, Robert, 100 

Morton, Julia T., 331, 333, 335, 343 

Moses Cone Hospital, 15, 194 

Mountain (Asheville) AHEC, 195 

Murray, Wendell McCullen, 15 

Nash General Hospital, 194 
National Association for Equal Op- 
portunity (NAFEO), 207 
National Association of State Univer- 
sities and Land Grant Colleges, 323 
National Collegiate Athletic Associa- 
tion. See NCAA 
National Guard, on campus, 78, 88 
National Humanities Center, 36 
National Science Foundation, grants 

from, 17-18, 36 
Natural sciences institute, 1 5 
NCAA, and basketball scandal, 13, 
40, 41, 43 



Neill, D. Samuel, 334 

Newfield, Jack, 86 

News and Observer (Raleigh), reports 
in, 105, in, 115, 118, 123, 124, 
132, 163, 188, 227 

New University Conference, 75 

New York Times, 227 

Nixon, Richard M., 84, 86, 88, 89 

Nonacademic Employees